Search for: "Michaels v State" Results 181 - 200 of 13,568
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2018, 7:05 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Out-of-court identification Wayne Bell, appellant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of robbery of Constance Pohl and assault of Michael Speights, who witnessed the robbery and chased appellant. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:29 am by Amanda Frost
Next Monday the Court will hear argument in United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 12:41 pm by Howard Wasserman
Drumpf (really, you cannot make this stuff up): Michael Dorf has a typically excellent analysis of the decision to sue in state rather than federal court He concludes that it was a strategic blunder, given the risk of a presidential immunity in state court. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 1:07 pm by Dale Burmeister
Matthews, MD, PC v Harleysville Insurance Company, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Case No. 18-11659, Hon. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 11:39 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Motor Vehicles OWI; probable cause Michael Barahona appeals judgments of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, first offense (OWI), contrary to Wis. [read post]
28 May 2008, 6:27 am
In the most recent issue of the NYU Survey of American Law, Professor Michael Allen, Stetson University College of Law, published Of Remedy, Juries, and State Regulation of Punitive Damages: The Significance of Philip Morris v. [read post]
11 Jan 2007, 7:26 am
Here's a story from Michael Kunzelman of the Associated Press on opening statements in the trial.... [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 2:20 pm by Anna Christensen
This morning, the Court handed down its opinion in United States v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 2:29 pm
The Hidden Logic of a Recent  Retroactivity Case in the Supreme Court," is the title of Columbia law prof Michael Dorf.Last week, in Danforth v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm by The Federalist Society
The question in this case is whether Congress’s 2006 decision to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.To discuss the case, we have Michael Carvin, who is a Partner at Jones Day.- See more at:… [read post]