Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 3421 - 3440
of 16,698
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2012, 4:25 am
Court rules that the appointing authority made its appointments consistent with the requirements of Section 61.1 of the Civil Service Law Cherry v New York State Civ. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 6:46 am
INS, 296 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2002) (asylum proceeding); United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 4:03 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 2:22 am
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court applied the "primary purpose test" articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:17 am
Ward LJ also drew support from the Supreme Court’s judgment in ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 12:03 pm
” In Federal-Mogul LLC v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:16 am
US v Rosenau, W.D. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 7:33 am
This failure deprived respondent to prepare for Mitchell's cross-examination. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 7:35 am
Facts: This case (Ploss v. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:16 am
Facts: This case (USA v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 5:27 am
Boone v. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 8:45 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
In Alyan v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
’ . . .In February 2011 the defendant and his co-conspirators targeted a publicly traded credit and debit card processing company based in the United States that processed transactions for prepaid debit cards issued by the American Red Cross for disaster relief victims. [read post]
30 May 2013, 2:47 pm
Underwood, who hails from the Sooner State, said about her donation: I have watched the devastation in my home state of Oklahoma over the past several days with great sadness. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 8:07 pm
But that's a different story.The question that the case of United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 12:36 pm
Following the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement for each side. [read post]
12 Aug 2007, 5:11 pm
We guess the thought that an improperly instructed jury on TWO murder counts might not have been the fairest panel to decide the entire case never crossed the minds of the Judges.In Barnes v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am
Lord Garnier QC says the only reason the court would have agreed to cross-examination would be if it was satisfied that there was a prima facie case that the evidence was not true. [read post]
