Search for: "Ryan v. State"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 2,464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2020, 9:08 am
Hudson v. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 6:00 am
Ryan C. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:15 am
As 2023 gets under way, the legal eagles of FOIA Advisor -- Allan Blutstein (AB) and Ryan Mulvey (RM) -- look back at 2022 and discuss the top ten decisions that stood out to them (in no particular order).(1) Barnes v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:01 am
United States, 16-309). [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 7:30 am
In Stenberg v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 9:08 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Breheny, Raquel Fox, and Ryan J. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
A.P. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 11:53 am
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Breheny, Raquel Fox, and Ryan J. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 7:31 am
Case Name: Qwest Corp. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 8:50 am
Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who oppose abortion.Those bills are largely opposed by antiabortion groups. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 6:10 am
Ryan J. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 8:07 pm
Ryan McGinley. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 8:12 am
Supreme Court ruled in Michigan v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 7:35 pm
Despite declaring a metaphorical war on metaphors earlier this term, see United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 11:03 am
In Pennsylvania, a geometry teacher named Lynette Gaymon mocked and harassed sixteen year old Samatha Pawlucy for wearing a T-Shirt promoting Romney-Ryan. [read post]
6 May 2013, 5:38 am
There were a handful of resolved cases reported: Full Fact v The Sun, Clause 1, 06/05/2013; Mr David Murray v Sutton Guardian, Clause 1, 03/05/2013; A woman v The Sun on Sunday, Clause 9, 03/05/2013; and Dr Carol Uren v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 03/05/2013. [read post]
28 Jan 2023, 8:00 am
As he explained to Ryan Park, who argued in favor of the state’s affirmative action policies, “I didn’t go to racially diverse schools, but there wereeducational benefits. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
