Search for: "STATE OF MARYLAND v. STATE OF LOUISIANA"
Results 221 - 240
of 425
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am
Louisiana, 14-182, presents the question whether due process requires reversal of a conviction where the lead prosecutor withheld evidence that he considered a key post-trial witness to be a liar. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
The court predicted that none of the 22 states (for some reason there’s not an appendix discussion of Louisiana) would adopt innovator liability. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 9:30 pm
We focus first on the landmark 1813 case Queen v. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 5:30 am
Beard v. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 11:26 am
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 4:19 pm
State agencies, including those in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas, have all reported to the U.S. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 10:59 am
Louisiana, 14-6381, is another in a long line of petitions involving the retroactivity of the Court’s decision in Miller v. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 11:06 am
Orin Kerr linked to the audio in Klayman v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 7:03 am
The Pennsylvania case is Wisniewski v. [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 11:07 am
As we saw in Carter, the Maryland Court of Appeals insisted upon characterizing apportionment of damages as based upon fault, when it clearly can be accomplished without reference to fault. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 4:35 pm
Supreme Court’s recognized in concurring opinions in United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
July 11, 2014) (applying Louisiana law), which we later found out was decided the same day.In one of our earlier posts, less than a week after Conte was decided, we made up an example to illustrate the potentially wide-ranging impact of allowing non-manufacturer liability for products based solely on “foreseeability”:Plaintiff New Dad gives plaintiff New Mom his old SUV, manufactured by Gasguzzlers ‘R Us, so she has something big and safe to drive New Baby around. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 12:55 pm
In Walthour v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
Feb. 28, 2014)), Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. [read post]
30 May 2014, 6:31 am
Louisiana, 13-8915, a one-time relist asking whether Miller v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:44 am
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 9:01 pm
Bergeris v. [read post]
9 May 2014, 4:49 am
As this site explains, the state of Maryland “recognizes two kinds of divorce: limited and absolute. [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 9:24 am
Hammond v. [read post]
