Search for: "State v. Mack S."
Results 241 - 260
of 293
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2009, 2:29 pm
It’s called a Frye-Mack hearing in Minnesota based upon two reported cases that outlined the procedure; United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:56 pm
Minnesota’s Frye-Mack standard has been steadily evolving since the early 20th century, and by the 1980's the Minnesota Supreme Court summarized the test in State v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 3:51 am
Mack v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 7:39 am
(See Westphal v. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 10:07 am
You may read or download the Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion, Hayes v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 12:53 pm
No. 2009-0346In Re SUPER AMERICAN GRAND JURYAMERICAN GRAND JURY'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER(CLICK ON JUDGE LAMBERTH'S ANSWER BELOW TO ENLARGE) Linda R.S. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 7:46 am
In Pittsburgh Mack Sales v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:34 am
Very interesting opinion just released—United States v. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 7:00 am
See City of New York v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 6:18 am
Mack Robinson Distinguished Professor of Accountancy Georgia State University School of Accountancy Richard Buxbaum J.D. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 9:06 am
Cir. 1923; State v. [read post]
15 Aug 2009, 5:56 am
United States v. [read post]
16 May 2009, 1:28 pm
NSSTA: Spencer v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 3:23 am
State v. [read post]
3 May 2009, 6:04 pm
Anthony Alfieri's "Litigation and Legislative Update" summarized Spencer v. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 12:45 am
Friday's ruling reversed a federal district judge's decision that had said the state must provide the amount of nursing care that a Georgia girl's doctor said she needs. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 8:21 pm
The leading case from Canada’s Supreme Court is R. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 8:21 pm
The leading case from Canada’s Supreme Court is R. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 3:31 am
State v. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 2:15 am
Bowersox, 208 F.3d 699, 701 (8th Cir.2000), the Eighth Circuit addressed the merits of a habeas petitioner's claim where the state court had reviewed the claim for plain error. [read post]
