Search for: "Barker v. State"
Results 181 - 200
of 396
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2011, 1:09 pm
See Barker v. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
In Barker v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 4:00 am
Pieter Teeuwissen and Claire Barker represented the City. [read post]
14 May 2014, 6:45 am
See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Cantu v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 1:42 pm
Barker Boatworks, LLC, 898 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2018). [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 12:52 pm
Velazquez pleaded guilty conditionally, reserving his right to appeal the speedy trial issue, and was sentenced to 80 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release.On appeal, the Third Circuit applied the test from Barker v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 3:22 am
A case of good lawyering was shown by the 8th’s decision a couple of weeks back in State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 1:35 am
That relaxation was developed in the subsequent House of Lords decision in Barker v Corus and by the introduction of section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006. [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 10:25 am
Supreme Court in 1972 in Barker v. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 4:18 pm
Compare Peacock v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:58 am
However, it has been explained as “using that process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use” (Attorney General v Barker (2000)). [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 5:02 am
In Barker v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 3:52 pm
People v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 6:48 am
Bell-v-Cystic-Complaint [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 4:10 pm
District Court in Barker v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:37 am
In United Rental Technologies v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 4:52 am
The Appellate Division, citing a number of cases including Matter of Board of Educ. of Barker Cent. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 1:16 pm
In Smith v. the United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 7:00 am
In Smith v. the United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 7:49 am
Co., 15 NY2d 111, 118-119 [1965]; see also Barker and Alexander, Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 4:63, at 260-261 [5 West's NY Prac Series 2001] ["Because the prejudice quotient is obvious, the rule barring such evidence is one of the least controversial in the law of evidence"]). [read post]
