Search for: "Utter v. Utter"
Results 2261 - 2280
of 2,630
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2009, 1:29 am
10thCir-Denver.jpg Victim statement made about an hour after a brutal assault during his transport to the hospital was admissible as excited utterances; there was no Confrontation Clause violation since there "a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine" the victim about the statement, even though the victim "did not testify as to the content of his post-assault statements", in United States v. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 11:17 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 1:40 am
250px-Ruger_P89_3.png In felon in possession of a firearm trial, witness's 911 call after she saw the defendant in a car with a gun was admissible as an excited utterance despite her testimony at trial that she had exaggerated the report in summoning the police; the exaggerations went "to the weight, not the admissibility of the 911 call"; Sixth Circuit concluded the 911 call "better fits the present sense impression exception," in United States… [read post]
22 Aug 2009, 10:23 am
Bush's utter unfitness to be President of the United States) by dooming a widely-accepted reform? [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 1:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:07 am
Walsh v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 1:49 am
Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division v. [read post]
15 Aug 2009, 2:52 pm
August 14, 2009The silent treatmentBy Joe FriesenFrom Saturday's Globe and MailMackel Peterkin was no gangster. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 11:24 pm
The most controversial part of the Libel Legislation is found in sections 33 and 37 (the “Sections”), which concern seditious libel: (1) Any person who a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act with a seditious intention; or b) utters any seditious words; or c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or d) imports any seditious publication, unless he has… [read post]
8 Aug 2009, 9:49 pm
Kaufman v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 11:29 am
The Supreme Court had ruled in Humphreys v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 11:06 pm
See Valassis Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 9:00 pm
Ashcroft v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 5:07 am
See, I don't even need to read them anymore.....Salinas v. [read post]
4 Aug 2009, 11:22 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 12:35 am
Let's begin with the leading Supreme Court case, Chaplinsky v. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 8:17 am
Justice Jackson, concurring in Brown v. [read post]
29 Jul 2009, 4:06 am
And remember -- fear is a tremendous motivator.On we go.....United Auto v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 10:14 am
New York State Court of Claims: DePaula v. [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 4:34 am
Like its federal counterpart, Texas Rule of Evidence 803(2) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the... [read post]
