Search for: "CRIM" Results 2181 - 2200 of 4,178
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Mar 2011, 11:15 am by Michael O'Hear
  He fundamentally shifted the agenda from the project of defining the scope of constitutional rights (which preoccupied the generation that came of age during the Warren Court crim pro revolution and the Burger Court counter-revolution) to the project of better understanding how rights actually work in the real world of plea-bargaining, over-taxed criminal-justice systems, and dysfunctional tough-on-crime politics. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:04 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Haddock, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 303 (07 February 2011) M, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 648 (18 March 2011) Takkar v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 646 (18 March 2011) Attorney Generals Reference No. 73, 75 & 03 of 2010 [2011] EWCA Crim 633 (03 March 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Tradegro (UK) Ltd v Wigmore Street Investments Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 268 (16 March 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Stevenson &… [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 8:53 am by Peter Tillers
One-Day Workshop on AI & Evidential Inference in Conjunction with ICAIL 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 10, 2011 Workshop Chairs: Giovanni Sartor & Peter Tillers Program Committee: Henry Prakken, Giovanni Sartor, Douglas Walton, & Peter Tillers For more information please contact either Giovanni Sartor - giovanni.sartor at gmail.com - or Peter Tillers - peter.tillers at gmail.com Panelists: Ronald J. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 4:24 am by sally
(Rev 1) [2011] EWCA Crim 579 (16 March 2011) Synnott & Ors, R v [2011] EWCA Crim 578 (16 March 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Mainline Private Hire Ltd v Nolan [2011] EWCA Civ 189 (02 March 2011) A and D (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 265 (17 March 2011) Woodland v Stopford & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 266 (16 March 2011) Medical Justice, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 269 (16 March 2011) High Court… [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 4:27 am by Russ Bensing
  In this case, it’s the fact that the last effort in that regard had him appearing by video, and he didn’t expressly waive his right to be physically present, as Crim R 43 requires. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 5:22 am by South Florida Lawyers
If the reasoning were true, why not break up the DCAs into specialized civil/crim courts as well? [read post]