Search for: "Davis v. State" Results 3621 - 3640 of 6,175
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2012, 4:38 pm by Jeffrey Brown
I won't continue to belabor the details of these cases unnecessarily, but in United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 2:43 pm
" However, with the high court's recent grant of cert to the State of Florida in Florida v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 10:43 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 6:53 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The style of the case is, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:53 am by INFORRM
Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings remain outstanding: Woodrow v Johansson, heard 19 January 2012 (HHJ Parkes QC) Miller v Associated Newspapers heard 21 to 25 May 2012 (Sharp J) SKA v CRH, heard 10 and 11 July 2012 (Nicola Davies J) Lord Ashcroft v Foley heard 20 July 2012 (Eady J) [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 7:35 pm by Stevie Phillips
Here, the State agreed that Tweedy should not have been convicted of both offenses and further agreed that the manufacture of methamphetamine conviction should be reversed.   [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 7:35 pm by Stevie Phillips
  Here, the State agreed that Tweedy should not have been convicted of both offenses and further agreed that the manufacture of methamphetamine conviction should be reversed. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:57 am by Rob Robinson
 http://bit.ly/LPLQcg (Bob Ambrogi) Model Behavior: Federal and State Court Rules on eDiscovery - - http://bit.ly/Mk6eHa (Jessica Mederson) Phase 2 of Discovery Pilot Provides Glimpse into Future of eDiscovery – - http://bit.ly/Oxc1V6 (BLLAWG) Robots Are Not Replacing eDiscovery Lawyers - http://bit.ly/MkKifa (Jason Krause) Rules for eDiscovery Vendors in D.C.: Taking A Step Back - http://bit.ly/Lt2hP4 (Cynthia Courtney)… [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 8:46 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Coffing Hoist Div., Duff-Norton Co., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987)(evidence of industry standards are inadmissible in strict products liability actions) Davis v. [read post]