Search for: "STATE v COUNTS"
Results 3161 - 3180
of 17,244
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2020, 2:09 pm
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Instagram photos After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Appellant Martin Moise Chery was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape, one count of false imprisonment, and one count of first-degree assault. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 2:05 pm
And I was representing the United States as an amicus to Ohio, and I had not actually written the briefs in this case. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:10 am
The case is Franco v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 6:54 am
Coleman v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
California et al. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2020, 8:21 am
The court cites to Calder v. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 10:45 pm
The split decision sent the case, U.S. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 10:45 am
In Rafferty v. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 10:30 am
HHJ Lewis noted the Court’s discretion to award a single award in the case or two or more libels, as stated in Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers [2017] EWHC 543 (QB). [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 9:35 am
Circuit Court considered the extraterritorial scope of the Copyright Act in light of Spanski v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 12:44 pm
He views Justice Marshall, in the 1803 Marbury v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 4:05 am
Whether this is a workable solution or in line with real-world practice – the UKSC itself stated that "it appears that [such caveats have] not been usual industry practice" – is not thoroughly addressed in the decision. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 6:17 pm
I count about eight separate arguments. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 10:59 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 6:58 am
Contributed to a Supreme Court filing in Malwarebytes v. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 2:51 pm
So the lawsuit (Castillo v Whitmer, Case No. 1:20-cv-751) will theoretically continue. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 1:10 pm
The sooner you get in touch, the sooner you can count on a reliable defense through every step of the legal process. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 11:41 am
That is, the movant could only ask to proceed on the following claims from the Amended Complaint [ECF 234]: (i) Plaintiffs’ third-party ballot-delivery claims that are set forth as parts of Counts I, II and III; (ii) Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to Pennsylvania’s poll-watching residency restriction set forth in Counts IV and V; and (iii) Plaintiffs’ claims for improper provisional voting as set forth in Counts VIII and IX. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 6:33 am
The first argument is rooted in a recent SCOV case, State v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. [read post]
