Search for: "Haney v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 60
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2022, 6:02 am
From 1981 to 2010, Georgia had precedents on the books making it an agency state; but in State v. [read post]
10 May 2007, 2:27 pm
State v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 12:15 am
Sarcuni v. bZX DAO, 2023 WL 2657633. [read post]
5 Nov 2006, 8:58 pm
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reverses in State v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 1:42 am
The second two appeals, R (Haney) v The Secretary of State for Justice and R (Kaiyam) v The Secretary of State for Justice will decide whether a delay in transferring the appellants to open prisons violated their rights under ECHR, arts 5 and 14 and whether the Court should depart from the precedent in R (James & Ors) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKHL 22 and R (Clift & Ors) v Secretary of State… [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 8:04 am
Virginia Matthews also stated in voir dire that she did not use Facebook. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 4:24 pm
An audio recording is available for Monday's oral argument in Haney v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:22 pm
In that case, Sullivan v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Virginia State v. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 10:43 am
Farm employers are not subject to many federal labor laws and, in many states, are not included within the scope of the state workers' compensation provisions. [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm
EXAMPLES OF EX POST FACTO AND VOID FOR VAGUENESS in TEXAS Example 1 -Ex Post Facto In the case of State v. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 6:34 am
State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 6:22 am
Haney, 64 M.J. 101, 113-16 (2006) (Crawford, J., concurring in part); see United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 7:37 am
”) Those statements were included in briefs in opposition to Haney v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 1:22 pm
Haney v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 11:50 am
, Haney v. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 4:54 am
Secretary of State for the Home Department v B2, heard 18 November 2014. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 5:45 am
State, 176 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 5:45 am
State, 176 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 5:36 pm
It is not a decision by either the SJC or the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
