Search for: "IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 6-9(b)(5) OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS" Results 181 - 200 of 340
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2008, 6:10 pm
The Decree required the Commissioner to impose restrictions on trapping in Wildlife Management Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 11:03 pm
To date, the Alabama Supreme Court has not ruled onthat motion.4. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Hawkins, No. 06-4061 "Conviction and sentence for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(b), are affirmed over claims that: 1) section 2423(b) is an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Power; and 2) the district court erred in relying upon defendant's plea agreement with the government to deny his motions attacking the constitutionality of section… [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 3:12 pm by James R. Marsh
It appeared in the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse Update earlier this year, before our appeal to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:05 pm by cdw
LEXIS 173 (S.C. 5/9/2011) ”This is a direct appeal in a death penalty case. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 8:50 am by cdw
” In re Tyrone Noling, 2011 U.S. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 1:23 am
On January 29, 1999, the trial court re-sentenced Wilgus to 5 years' to 10 years' incarceration. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
In chronological order, here are the courts of appeals' decisions:a. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 9:37 pm by cdw
Houk, 08-4019 (6th Cir 12/9/2010) Defendant’s petition for habeas relief from his murder conviction and a sentence of death, is granted where: 1) the Ohio Supreme Court unreasonably applied Miranda in refusing to require the police to terminate interrogation upon exercise of the right to have a lawyer present and in allowing the police to demand involuntary answers by re-instituting the questioning without warnings; 2) the Ohio Supreme… [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Supreme Court that a California appeals court's ruling in a seat belt case "expands the doctrine of preemption far beyond its constitutional foundation. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
Our thirst for guidance from the California Supreme Court remains unquenched as the court still has five CEQA cases under review. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 9:14 am
Dudas: - concerns the appeal of the claims and continuations rules promulgated by the USPTO which were preliminarily enjoined and ultimately permanently enjoined by the District Court. [read post]
31 May 2024, 9:40 am by Daniel J. Gilman
Supreme Court in the Phoebe Putney case (which was about FTC jurisdiction and the state-action doctrine) had to do with a merger to monopoly. [read post]