Search for: "State v. Words" Results 201 - 220 of 36,206
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2009, 1:01 am
iStock_000000100546_L2.jpg The First Circuit explains the circumstances in which an undercover agent may give lay testimony "as to the meaning of code words or phrases" concerning drug quantities based on the agent's "undercover drug buys"; noting as one factor whether the witness's lay testimony "corresponds" to undisputed facts, in United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 2:35 pm by Steven R. Morrison
 After all, as Justice Holmes said in Gitlow v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 8:07 am
 I'll close out my visit with a few final words about finality in bankruptcy.This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Schwab v. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 4:33 am by Grace Capel
The post Case Preview: Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for the Home Department appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
20 Jul 2016, 2:44 pm by Michael Grossman
” Delivering the majority decision in Voisine v United States, Justice Elena Kagan eloquently stated: “Reckless con­duct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 11:27 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The SupremeCourt recently observed this challenge to patent claiminterpretation, stating in Nautilus, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 4:40 am by SHG
  The only limitation was the prosecutor's imagination and the judge's willingness to get the sentence over.The 10th Circuit, however, said the unthinkable in United States v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 3:00 am by Shea Denning
The court of appeals recognized one such situation earlier this week in State v. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 4:45 am by Sean O'Beirne, Kingsley Napley LLP
On 23 November 2015 the Supreme Court heard a two day appeal of the decision in R (Nouazli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1608. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 4:45 am by SHG
There was never any serious question that the prosecution would be prohibited under RAV v. [read post]