Search for: "Harrington v. Harrington"
Results 301 - 320
of 657
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Pinholster, which held that habeas review is limited to the record that was before the state court; and (3) whether the decision of the Second Circuit affords the state court the deference required by 28 U.S.C § 2254(d), as interpreted by this Court in Harrington v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 8:06 am
In his five-page decision in Burdette v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 5:00 pm
In his five-page decision in Burdette v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 9:49 am
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Langford v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 4:10 pm
Griffin v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 1:31 pm
I admit that I too would be a bit flummoxed if a witness said "No" to the standard question (at the outset of his testimony) as to whether he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. [read post]
10 Aug 2013, 6:07 am
In Acosta v Acosta--- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 3970239 (C.A.8 (Minn.)) [read post]
28 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Last year, in Schneider v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 5:00 am
Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 190 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex. 1945). [read post]
30 May 2013, 9:05 pm
” Slip p. 4-5, Quoting Harrington v. [read post]
2 May 2013, 2:22 am
Miller v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 9:27 am
Conte v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 8:57 pm
Newsday editors and executives testified that they did not authorize or instruct Harrington to conduct the investigation. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
In order to be non-essential, it must be found not to be essential under both questions.[354] This interpretation is consistent with the approach taken by the Federal Court of Appeal in Halford v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 5:33 am
In a decision akin to that delived by the Court of Appeal, a Queensland Magistrate has helped set out the test for domestic violence cases under that State's Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 3:42 pm
The Sixth Circuit removed all doubt in Ballinger v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 3:27 am
To paraphrase Lord Atkin in United Australia v Barclays Bank[7], today, when the ghost of Mallet stands in the path of a just and equitable outcome, clanking its gender biased chains, the proper course for a judge is to pass through it undeterred. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm
James12-11Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s panel opinion conflicts with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and this Court's decisions in Harrington v. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 1:18 pm
Ct. 1388 (2011), and Harrington v. [read post]
