Search for: "Conte v. State"
Results 221 - 240
of 550
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2014, 1:22 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 2:28 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
13 Sep 2014, 10:57 am
To Be Cont.. [read post]
7 Sep 2014, 4:51 pm
These grounds are insufficient since under Mc v. [read post]
7 Sep 2014, 3:23 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 2:45 pm
Alternatively, the People stated grounds for renewal. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 2:40 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 12:27 pm
The second Mathews factor requires the Criminal Court to examine the risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest at stake as a result of the State's procedures and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards with respect to that interest. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 4:16 pm
Indeed, Florida courts, as in Montgomery v State, State v Mason and Smith v State, have held that a nolo contendere plea with adjudication withheld is generally considered a conviction for purposes of determining a defendant's sentence for subsequent convictions. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 3:25 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 2:54 pm
On 21 August 1997, Defendant signed a form in New York State stating that he would register as a sex offender. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 2:49 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 3:25 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 10:44 am
He cites the United States Supreme Court decision which is normally cited in support of claims that the procedures for depriving a person of a protected liberty interest violate due process, Matthews v Eldridge. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 12:20 pm
To Be Cont... [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 8:38 am
For this proposition, C&L cited one of our favorite cases: United States v. [read post]
14 Aug 2014, 3:23 pm
In United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 12:01 pm
New York State courts have almost uniformly held that the laws requiring registration of sex crimes offenders are remedial and therefore constitutional. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 2:34 pm
DePuy argued that plaintiffs’ state law design defect claims were preempted under Pliva v. [read post]
