Search for: "Speed v. State" Results 2981 - 3000 of 4,300
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2015, 10:34 pm by Evan M. Levow
The appellate court reviewed New Jersey law regarding how the state may prove impairment in a DWI case, and it affirmed the convictions in State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 3:13 pm
Specifically, Regulation 33 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V states: The Master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the Search and Rescue Service that the ship is doing so. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 12:26 pm by James S. Friedman, LLC
  Brady material gets its name from the landmark 1963 United States Supreme Court decision of Brady v. [read post]
13 Nov 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Beginning with the landmark 1938 decision in Erie v. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 5:47 pm by Richard Hunt
Jan. 8, 2021) that Strojnik: “has filed thousands of disability discrimination cases against hotel defendants in state and federal courts,” Strojnik v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 12:49 am by Marie Louise
– General Court rejects appeal concerning speed reducing gearbox Case T-246/10 Francisco Ivars v OHIM – Motive intervening (Class 99) Nike in General Court: DYNAMIC SUPPORT and VICTORY RED: T-512/10, T-356/10 (Class 46) General Court: PIPELINE and absolute grounds: T-87/10 (Class 46) Is territoriality dead? [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 1:25 pm by rainey Reitman
Xavier Becerra and United States of America v. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 5:00 am by Lisa Murphy
Mar. 1, 2012), and in New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 5:20 am by Jack Sharman
Court of Appeal’s decision in September 2018 in Director of the Serious Fraud Office 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]