Search for: "Clifton v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 376
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2013, 10:34 am
United States v. [read post]
27 May 2013, 3:32 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 May 2013, 8:38 am
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)In its 15-page opinion in Righthaven LLC v. [read post]
5 May 2013, 2:25 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 3:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 11:41 am
The judge stated that counsel should be able to deal with at least some of these from their own notes. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 7:58 am
U.S. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 4:09 pm
There are also a number of resolved cases: A woman v Lancashire Telegraph (Clauses 1, 3, 11/01/2013); A man v The Sun (Clauses 4, 5, 6, 11/01/2013); Mrs Emma Drury-Ward v Chat (Clause 1, 11/01/2013); Ms Tina Hallett & Mr Jonathan Apps v Daily Mail (Clause 1, 11/01/2013); A man v Daily Mail (Clauses 1, 3, 11/01/2013); Sarah Cookv Easy Living, (Clause 3, 11/01/2013); Mr Joe Cooke v The Daily Telegraph (Clause 1, 11/01/2013); Mr Bruce Elliott… [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 2:47 pm
Judge Clifton? [read post]
4 Nov 2012, 8:42 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 3:47 am
Last week, in State v. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 12:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 6:40 am
The short answer is no; instead, it took the opening it left itself in Clifton v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 8:16 am
Gentry v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 11:28 am
" Clifton v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 11:51 am
An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Clifton Yarborough’s attorney presented evidence about his intelligence level at trial in 1985. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:06 am
In Sealy v Clifton, LLC (68 AD3d 846 [2d Dept 2009]), the Second Department held that an individual plaintiff, who owned a 50% interest in an limited liability company, did not have "legal capacity to sue" for partition of a property owned by a limited liability company of which he was member. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 9:50 am
As I have noted before, New Mexico is the only United States jurisdiction that makes polygraph evidence presumptively admissible barring a prior stipulation by the parties. [read post]
