Search for: "PARKER V. STATE" Results 261 - 280 of 1,756
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Sep 2020, 4:11 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Parker, Beth, Law School Exams during a Pandemic – One Law School’s Experience (August 20, 2020). [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 12:06 pm by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Illegal sentence — Plea agreement On September 20, 2000, Steven Parker appeared with counsel in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, pled guilty to second-degree murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, and conspiracy to ... [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 3:58 am by CMS
  The Supreme Court held that Gardner v Parker was wrongly decided. [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:58 am by Schachtman
Houghton Chemical Corp., 434 Mass. 624, 751 N.E.2d 848 (2001) (acetone and other chemicals in 55-gallon drums); Parker v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 8:40 am by Eugene Volokh
Though Parker had been unable to make bail, McDowell had given Parker a bail-like release (something that a jailer was apparently allowed to do), but then threatened to revoke it if Parker voted for a candidate of whom McDowell disapproved. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 1:23 am by Jani Ihalainen
 The case of Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC concerned the movies ‘Parker’ and ‘Scary Movie 5 over which Constantin had the exclusive rights to. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 8:27 am by Eleonora Rosati
This, in a nutshell, is the question which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had been required to answer in Constantin Film v YouTube, C-264/19.The referral, which Germany’s Federal Court of Justice had made, focused on the interpretation of Article 8(2)(a) of the Enforcement Directive, a piece of EU legislation adopted in 2004.The background national proceedings had originated from the refusal, by YouTube and its parent company Google, to provide film producer… [read post]