Search for: "Edwards v. Unknown"
Results 21 - 40
of 185
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Mar 2012, 12:44 pm
Authored by Edward M. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 12:05 am
Discipline settlementsSills v Keric, NYS Supreme Court, Ia Part 30, Justice Heitler, affd, 5 A.D.3d 247, appeal denied 3 NY3d 610 New York City police officer Edward Sills was terminated from his position pursuant to a "Terminate Probation Agreement" that he had signed to settle an earlier disciplinary action. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 4:44 pm
Edward Carver (NFP) - "Greta McKenzie-Carver ("Wife") appeals the trial court's disposition of property in her dissolution proceedings with Edward Carver ("Husband"). [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 10:00 am
In Edwards v. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 5:20 am
Last week, in the case of Bugosh v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 2:42 pm
Edward Whelan III, Ethics and Public Policy Center Edward Lazarus, lawyer and author Lucas A. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 11:19 am
Edward T. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 8:10 pm
Edward X. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 12:37 pm
See, Knight First Amendment Institute v. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 1:03 pm
In the April 14, 2022 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 4:00 pm
” In the same publication, Attorney Alyson Clair Decker reviews You Don’t Own Me: How Mattel v. [read post]
17 May 2018, 11:01 am
For example, a defendant cannot obtain contribution for RICO liability, as in County of Hudson v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 8:45 am
Edward K. [read post]
18 Oct 2009, 9:01 am
The case of Edwards v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 2:10 pm
It is especially crucial for those who wish to walk in the footsteps of one Edward Gately, whose line of work the Appeals Court previously described, in Allen v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 2:29 pm
Davis v. [read post]
9 May 2015, 7:20 pm
NSAACLU v. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm
Geoffrey Stone is the Edward H. [read post]
4 May 2012, 7:31 am
For those who do not have time, the short version is that the court rejected three distinct arguments: that the government violated Edwards by questioning the defendant without counsel present in the aftermath of his capture, that the defendants’ trio of subsequent written waivers of his Miranda and prompt-presentment rights were invalid, and that the government violated the 5th and 6th amendments by preventing defendant’s counsel from locating him after his capture. [read post]
