Search for: "State v. Atkins" Results 221 - 240 of 670
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2015, 11:49 pm by Jeff Gamso
 And they're up to 4 law clerks/staff attorneys each.From the oral argument before the court Monday morning in Brumfield v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 7:27 am by Dominic Yobbi
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF] Monday over how to apply the court's 2002 decision Atkins v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 9:35 am by Lyle Denniston
In Atkins, the Court said it would leave it to the states to decide who fits into that category, and how to decide that question. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 6:22 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 The basis for each of these prohibitions is the 8th Amendment's ban of cruel and unusual punishment.Mental disability made the list via the 2002 decision in Atkins v Virginia. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 5:09 pm by INFORRM
Canada In the case of Focus Graphite Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 4:52 pm by INFORRM
It is also worth recalling the words of Lord Atkin in Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384 at 386: It is precisely because the real damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 11:54 am by Ron Coleman
“The time for lighting the Chanukah candles is from sunset until the time that the traffic ceases in the marketplace,” states the Talmud (Shabbos 21b). [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am by John Elwood
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 7:23 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 5:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]