Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 2441 - 2460
of 16,692
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2020, 2:49 pm
Does it mean you no longer have the right to cross-examine her at trial? [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 3:03 pm
"Back in the States, Mr. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 3:52 pm
Rachel Pickering won in State v. [read post]
25 Dec 2012, 2:25 pm
A proper basis for the claim must be stated. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 10:51 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 5:54 pm
Bounds v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 3:10 am
” [Ilya Shapiro on Cato merits amicus filing in Lucia v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 12:15 pm
In a separate opinion in B-K Lighting, Judge Newman writes:On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the motion of Fresno Valves & Castings (“FVC”), and ruled that United States Patent RE 39,084, owned by B-K Lighting, is invalid on the ground of obviousness. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 3:01 am
Smith, and others; Halbrook on the Court’s decision to hear New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2024, 11:01 am
” See U.S. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 3:45 am
Where, as here, the defendants submitted evidentiary material in support of that branch of their cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint, the criterion becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether one is stated (see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 845). [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
In Brandenburg v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 7:07 am
[ADDITION, 8 p.m.: The original version of this post did not state that the questions presented in Los Angeles County v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 12:23 pm
The case concerned the question of how cross-claims between two credit institutions are to be dealt with in insolvency proceedings in two different member states of the European Economic Area (EEA). [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 3:23 am
Ate My Heart, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 1:45 am
In the last two years the Supreme Court has grappled with this conundrum in various ways: in relation to control orders; allegations of terrorist financing (SSHD v AF [2009] UKHL 28); compensation for those who have suffered miscarriage of justice (R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18); and criminal conduct as the subject of disciplinary proceedings (R (G) v The Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30). [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 10:46 am
ED appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of liability and Naylor cross-appealed on the issue of the amount of the award. [read post]
1 Jan 2010, 6:07 pm
Rocky Brands, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 5:53 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
Participating States must also comply with various other requirements, including those that protect against waste, fraud, and abuse; those that protect the health and safety, and the privacy, of Medicaid beneficiaries; those that ensure that the States adequately accomplish the goals of the program (see the recent decision in Douglas v. [read post]
