Search for: "State v. Utter" Results 281 - 300 of 1,967
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Oct 2021, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
” Molan asserts that she wasn’t mocking Pacific Islander names when she uttered “hooka looka mooka hooka fooka” because mocking involves cruelty. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 2:49 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” She also reviewed the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Marchand v. [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" * The defamation per sein New York are statements which: charge the plaintiff with a serious crime; state false facts that tend to injure the plaintiff in his or her business trade or profession; allege that the plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or impute that the plaintiff is unchaste. [read post]
8 Sep 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" * The defamation per sein New York are statements which: charge the plaintiff with a serious crime; state false facts that tend to injure the plaintiff in his or her business trade or profession; allege that the plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or impute that the plaintiff is unchaste. [read post]
8 Aug 2021, 9:21 am by Florian Mueller
" (emphasis added)Hey, that's the same Apple that has been telling state legislatures in Arizona and many other states that they shouldn't legislate on mobile app stores (and I guess Apple is not exactly a fan of right-to-repair state laws either). [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 6:30 am by Unreported Opinions
Criminal procedure — Hearsay — Excited-utterance exception After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Worcester County, James Troy Durham was convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to seven years in prison. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 11:22 am by admin
Most state courts dragged their judicial feet, but at least uttered in dicta that they were concerned. [read post]
Babies and children lack legal capacity—and rely on the care of parents, guardians, or the state to survive. [read post]
9 Jul 2021, 3:51 am by SHG
Ct. 1683, 1689 n.2 (2020); see also United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:52 am by Phil Dixon
Judges Inman and Griffin concurred. (1) Victim’s statements regarding identity of attacker were admissible as excited utterances despite possible passage of time between attack and statements; (2) Sixth Amendment confrontation argument not raised during trial was waived on appeal notwithstanding pretrial motion; (3) No abuse of discretion or prejudicial error in admission of testimony identifying defendant on a jail phone call and interpreting the contents of the call State… [read post]