Search for: "Harris v. State" Results 3421 - 3440 of 5,100
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2021, 6:25 am by Russell Knight
Harris, 526 NE 2d 335 – Ill: Supreme Court 1988 Evidence of bias can really be anything. [read post]
12 May 2021, 8:08 pm by John Elwood
(rescheduled before the Oct. 9, Oct. 16, Oct. 30, Nov. 6, Nov. 13, Nov. 20, Dec. 4 and Dec. 11 conferences; relisted after the Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Jan. 22, Feb. 19, Feb. 26, March 5, March 19, March 26, April 1, April 16, April 23 and April 30 conferences)  Harris v. [read post]
I
7 Jun 2010, 8:25 pm by cdw
” Ambrose Harris v.Ricci, 2010 U.S. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
The proposed lines dividing each of the six new states are provisional; under Draper’s proposal, over the next few years, any county that adjoins any of the proposed states can choose to become part of that contiguous state, provided that the counties that are provisionally in that neighboring state also agree to add such a county. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 3:26 pm by Erin Miller
  And Fisher notes that Stevens hinted this Term in his United States v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
  As of the time of trial, the state of the art did not include a genetic marker for SJS/TEN. [read post]
6 Dec 2015, 11:06 am by Dan Ernst
But as McMahon observes, if the high court ruled to enforce Brown v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm by WSLL
Harris of Harris Law Firm, PC; Scott D. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:25 am by Marie Louise
-Conn (IPKat) (EPLAW) EWHC (Ch): All threats, no action…: Best Buy Co Inc and another v Worldwide Sales Corporation Espana SL (IPKat)   United States  US General California’s Trade Secret disclosure statute doesn’t apply in Federal Court – or maybe it does (IP ADR Blog) US Patents USPTO wants to change restriction practice (Patent Baristas) The post-Bilski landscape: Why some tried, but failed, to ban ‘business method’ patents (Prior… [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:43 pm by Tom Goldstein
Harris Associates Docket: 08-586 Argument date: November 2, 2009 Question presented: Federal law imposes duties on investment managers regarding the funds they manage. [read post]