Search for: "Blackston v. State*" Results 181 - 200 of 438
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
  He traces the emergence of inspection powers and “visitorial powers” to English law, and identifies a change in the old common law notion of civil corporations that began with Blackstone. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 8:24 am by John Jascob
The plaintiff was unaware that the Blackstone Group had been soliciting bids from other pharmaceutical companies and working with potential acquirers of Stiefel. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 5:21 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Justin Moongyu Lee; Rebecca Taewon Lee; Thomas Edward Kent; American Immigrant Investment Fund I, LLC; Biofuel Venture IV, LLC; Biofuel Venture V, LLC; Nexland, Inc., dba Nexland Investment Group; and Nexsun Ethanol, LLC Case number: 14-cv-06865 (United States District Court for the Central District of California) Case filed: September 3, 2014 Qualifying Judgment/Order: October 29, 2015 11/30/2015 2/28/2016 2015-129 In the Matter of Blackstone Management Partners… [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm by John Elwood
Blackston, 15-161, a state-on-top habeas case that asked whether a Michigan court’s denial of a defendant’s request to introduce two witnesses’ written recantations of their testimony was a Confrontation Clause violation. [read post]
22 Nov 2015, 4:44 pm by Richard Primus
”  To support the proposition, Justice Scalia cited Blackstone. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am by John Elwood
Blackston, 15-161, a state-on-top habeas case, got a second relist. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 11:30 am by John Elwood
Blackston, 15-161, is a state-on-top habeas petition involving the Confrontation Clause and impeachment with extrinsic evidence and the deference due to state-court conclusions about the harmlessness of any error. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 8:57 am by John Elwood
Blackston, 15-161, a state-on-top petition involving the Confrontation Clause and impeachment with extrinsic evidence and the deference due state-court conclusions regarding the harmlessness of any error. [read post]