Search for: "Edwards v. Cross" Results 181 - 200 of 637
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2018, 7:18 am by Schachtman
The published case report by Ratner helps demonstrate that Allen v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 10:11 am by Jeff Foust
Donna Edwards (D-MD), ranking member of the space subcommittee, has been talking to members of the Senate about their plans. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 6:04 am
Potential Changes to Fund of Funds Arrangements Posted by Thomas Hiller, Brian McCabe, and Edward Baer, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Friday, February 1, 2019 Tags: Exchange-traded funds, Investment advisers, Investment Advisers Act, Investor protection, Risk management, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Section 12(d), Securities regulation The Latest on Proxy Access Posted by Holly J. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 8:54 pm by Florian Mueller
Chen in San Francisco, then crossed the Bay Bridge.Judge Chen also received the Pure Sweat Basketball v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 4:06 am by Edith Roberts
Counting to 5 (podcast) looks at the opinion in Hall v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 6:50 am by Dennis Crouch
(cross-petition asks for recourse on failure to dance) Antitrust Reverse Payments: GlaxoSmithKline, et al. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 5:25 pm by Brian Shiffrin
Edwards, 192 Misc.2d 473, 475-76, 747 N.Y.S.2d 688, 690 (N.Y.Sup.,2002)In a great summary of the law and conclusions to be drawn about whether a client gets to make his decision, Judge Reichbach, citing numerous cases, wrote:Many cases hold that a failure by defense counsel to secure a client's right to  testify before the Grand Jury by failing to file a cross Grand Jury notice is not, by itself, ineffective assistance of counsel. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 1:55 pm by Thomas G. Heintzman
The Motions Edward then brought a motion to dismiss the December 2010 action and cross claim against it on the ground that the limitation period had expired. [read post]
4 May 2012, 7:31 am by Robert Chesney
  For those who do not have time, the short version is that the court rejected three distinct arguments: that the government violated Edwards by questioning the defendant without counsel present in the aftermath of his capture, that the defendants’ trio of subsequent written waivers of his Miranda and prompt-presentment rights were invalid, and that the government violated the 5th and 6th amendments by preventing defendant’s counsel from locating him after his capture. [read post]