Search for: "Van Order v. State"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,433
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2008, 5:00 pm
In McPadden v. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 5:55 pm
In Oliva-Ramos v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am
While the criminal charges were dismissed due to the crimes being time-barred, the prosecutor still requested the Pesaro judge to issue a confiscation order for the bronze, based on Italian cultural heritage law.[14] While the Getty Trust opposed this order, in 2019 the Court of Cassation confirmed it, thus making it final under Italian law.[15] Legal Issues and the ECtHR Judgement In order to obtain the actual return of the statue, the Pesaro prosecutor had to seek the… [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 3:00 am
We discuss briefly the final installment (in the District Court) of the attempt to recover possession of a Van Gogh drawing allegedly sold away from the plaintiff’s great-grandmother “under duress during the Nazi era in Germany for fraction of its fair value”, Orkin v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 8:57 am
Case citation: Florida Van Rentals, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 8:36 pm
Van Der Molen v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 4:20 am
Sellers, which asks when a federal court in a habeas case should “look through” a summary state-court ruling to review the last reasoned state-court decision. [read post]
19 May 2022, 2:32 pm
Related Cases: Van Buren v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 6:32 am
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD J. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 6:32 am
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE RICHARD J. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 2:02 pm
Supreme Court's 2016 decision in CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 1:40 pm
Case Name: Brown v. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 11:38 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 5:48 am
Recently, Scalia says, the Court is "more receptive to the needs of religious practice," citing the 2005 decision, Van Orden v. [read post]
23 May 2015, 2:09 pm
We find that the "non-delegable duty" exception set forth in CPLR 1602(2)(iv) does not apply to the facts of this case, and we therefore conclude that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to issue an apportionment charge (see also, Van Vlack v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 3:24 pm
We find that the "non-delegable duty" exception set forth in CPLR 1602(2)(iv) does not apply to the facts of this case, and we therefore conclude that the Supreme Court erred in refusing to issue an apportionment charge (see also, Van Vlack v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 6:13 am
Barnes & Noble, 763 F.3d 1171, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2014)); see also, Van Tassell v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 10:19 am
”); United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 1:01 pm
The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Montgomery v. [read post]
