Search for: "State v. McCray"
Results 1 - 20
of 48
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2024, 12:19 pm
McCray v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 7:30 am
Note that McCray v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 10:40 am
See Roviaro; McCray v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:24 am
State v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
In Holt v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
In Holt v. [read post]
25 Jan 2023, 11:37 am
In State v. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 6:04 am
The Court of Appeals says no habeas relief is warranted, and plaintiff remains incarcerated.The case is McCray v. [read post]
19 Aug 2022, 2:32 pm
The 2010 New York trial at issue in McCray v. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 11:30 am
”Taylor v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 6:52 am
In June 2020, the Second Circuit held in McCray v. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 5:33 am
The Court of Appeals has reinstated an Eighth Amendment lawsuit filed by an inmate who alleges that the jail denied him exercise opportunities because they decided against clearing the outside recreational areas of snow and ice during the winter months.The case is McCray v. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 10:32 am
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Reasonable articulable suspicion Appellants, Kirby Reaves, Jason McCray, and Kennard Gardner, entered into conditional guilty pleas in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to various handgun offenses, after their motion to suppress was jointly litigated and denied. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 10:28 am
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress — Reasonable articulable suspicion Appellants, Kirby Reaves, Jason McCray, and Kennard Gardner, entered into conditional guilty pleas in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to various handgun offenses, after their motion to suppress was jointly litigated and denied. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 4:10 am
In Stewart v. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 7:23 am
Judge Schroeder dissented (McCray v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 8:44 am
State v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 9:52 am
McCray v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 9:52 am
McCray v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 8:35 am
In 2012, for example, a federal court in Kansas denied the state’s motion to dismiss a claim that requiring installation of an IID, without reasonable accommodations for certain medical conditions, violated a person’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (McCray v. [read post]