Search for: "ELLIS v. STATE"
Results 361 - 380
of 792
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
In Breakiron v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 10:32 am
Further, in the 2015 case Ellis v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 6:04 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice Admission Rejected; Defendant Responsible For Less Cocaine Than for Minimum Sentence United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 11:50 am
, Haney v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 3:35 pm
United States, 2009 U.S. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:29 pm
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 9:45 am
Polk County Court and State Office v. [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 6:42 am
The defendant must affirmatively demonstrate the absence of one of the elements of legal malpractice, rather than merely pointing out gaps in the plaintiff’s proof (see Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v Ellis, 126 AD3d 866, 871). [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:31 am
” In Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 10:20 am
Thompson, 881 F.2d 117, 123, n. 2 (CA4 1989); Ellis v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 3:36 pm
” Ellis v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm
See Demahy v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 8:53 am
State Senator Rodney Ellis, who chairs the state's Innocence Project board and is a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, tells the Times that every case involving Denkowski should be reviewed. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 12:25 pm
Plaintiffs in Duncan v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 2:54 pm
Ellis. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 2:23 pm
Justice Ellis, dissenting, rejected as indefensible a bright-line two-year rule. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 7:52 am
AWQC’s submissions on this point included the following: Unlike Warby J, the Court of Appeal disregarded binding case law which restricts the availability of representative actions for damages (notably Duke of Bedford v Ellis [1901] AC 1 and Markt & Co. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 1:40 pm
Ellis v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 12:04 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2008, 12:00 pm
This one may take you a little while to get through, but it's worth it: United States v. [read post]