Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 2981 - 3000
of 16,697
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2015, 8:05 am
In its recent decision in Waters v. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 9:39 am
State Bar leaders announced the decision after the bar’s Board of Directors met Monday to consult outside counsel on the McDonald v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 7:41 am
See United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:14 pm
In Berezowsky v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 8:58 am
So says the Army CCA in a published opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 May 2012, 1:00 pm
Cross posted at Life Sentences. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 2:41 pm
On Tuesday, April 26, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mathis v. [read post]
5 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court in its 2019 Rucho v. [read post]
18 Dec 2007, 7:18 pm
” eBay Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 5:36 am
State,...we cited Loper v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 9:10 am
The federal courts typically deal with drug cases when a federal officer makes the arrest, the offenses cross state lines, or the charges involve large quantities of drugs, trafficking, manufacturing, or intent to distribute narcotics. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 9:10 am
The federal courts typically deal with drug cases when a federal officer makes the arrest, the offenses cross state lines, or the charges involve large quantities of drugs, trafficking, manufacturing, or intent to distribute narcotics. [read post]
14 May 2011, 11:27 am
Here’s a breathtakingly broad decision: The Indiana Supreme Court, in Barnes v. [read post]
15 Feb 2022, 1:11 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 12:17 pm
Paris v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 11:28 am
" The Tenth Circuit had a rather convoluted theory that a cross-appeal is only for instances where an appellee wants "more than it obtained by the lower-court judgment" and since the appellee was not seeking alteration of the judgment, they need not file a cross-appeal.In United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 7:56 am
In Chao Fu Inc. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 2:13 pm
Circuit issued an opinion, in U.S. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 4:45 am
s statements in the e-mails “were material because they `clearly establish a motive to fabricate or lie” and could have been used on cross-examination to `impeach [K.M.] with [K.M.' [read post]
