Search for: "GARNER v. STATE"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,941
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2016, 8:50 am
The unusual case of Bagley v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 1:50 am
Supreme Court Global Process Systems Inc & Anor v Berhad [2011] UKSC 5 (1 February 2011) ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4 (1 February 2011) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Steed v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 75 (01 February 2011) Barclay & Ors v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 32 (01 February 2011) Hereworth v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 74 (01 February 2011) Welsh v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 73 (01 February 2011)… [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:01 pm
GROCHOCINSKI v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am
United States and United States v. [read post]
19 Nov 2015, 1:00 am
Both cases have garnered heavy press interest, and for good reason. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 3:26 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 8:28 am
United States, overruled Harris v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 11:15 am
United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
It noted that when a relevant state law is established by a decision of “the State’s highest court,” that decision is “binding on the federal courts”; however, the views of the State’s attorney general, while attracting “respectful consideration,” do not garner controlling weight. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 12:58 pm
Specifically, Garner contends that the district courterred in denying his motion for a new trial based on a violation of Brady v. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 5:56 am
While several recent Supreme Court decisions have garnered significant headlines, the Court’s late June ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 7:29 pm
See Columbia v. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 4:01 pm
See Flanagan v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 7:08 am
State Street Bank v. [read post]
17 Jun 2007, 8:10 pm
Nor, the state continues, is certiorari warranted based either on the prospect of overruling the Court's decision in Murray v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 1:50 pm
See Kallick v. [read post]
5 Feb 2023, 10:50 pm
In PayPal, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm
As a result of their disagreements, the IRC submitted, as a first set of maps, two proposed redistricting plans to the legislature — maps from each party delegation — as is constitutionally permitted if a single consensus map fails to garner sufficient votes (see NY Const, art III, § 5-b [g]). [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm
As a result of their disagreements, the IRC submitted, as a first set of maps, two proposed redistricting plans to the legislature — maps from each party delegation — as is constitutionally permitted if a single consensus map fails to garner sufficient votes (see NY Const, art III, § 5-b [g]). [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 12:25 pm
It seems as if the habeas strategy will be more likely to garner votes. [read post]
