Search for: "DAVIE v. STATE"
Results 2701 - 2720
of 5,642
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2023, 6:30 am
Katz, Sabastian V. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 6:30 am
Katz, Sabastian V. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 4:36 am
Just in time for the SEC’s 80th birthday (tomorrow is 80 years since the ’34 Act was signed into law), comes this news from Paul Weiss (we will be posting memos in our “SEC Enforcement” Practice Area): Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a significant decision in SEC v. [read post]
11 Dec 2016, 11:54 pm
United States Rolling Stone magazine has urged judges to overturn the libel verdict against them over fabricated story about University of Virginia rape. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 5:00 pm
No surprise after United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 2:25 am
” David Savage of the Los Angeles Times reported on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s separate opinion regarding solitary confinement in Davis v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 4:10 am
(See Wagner Davis P.C. v Gargano, 116 AD3d 426, 426 [1st Dept 2014]). [read post]
28 Aug 2021, 11:45 am
Accident Reconstruction Testimony Introduced at TrialThe case is State v. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 10:30 pm
”); see also Davis v. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 3:55 am
” Meredith v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 12:58 pm
The case that raises this question is Vance v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 2:56 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 2:56 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 7:17 am
King v State, Supreme Court No. 140684.Given the departure of Justice Davis from the Court (who was in the majority), a motion for rehearing seems likely. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 9:28 am
That ruling came in the case of Liberty University v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 9:56 am
” In the denial of the cellphone tower data case (Davis v. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 5:55 am
" See United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 2:57 pm
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
25 May 2018, 11:00 am
Davis 17-6883 Issue: Whether—when the U.S. [read post]
9 Sep 2024, 6:36 am
An Iowa court held the private-employer drug-testing law is not, however, part of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act and the “split sample” requirement does not apply to post-injury testing of injured workers [see Davis v. [read post]
