Search for: "INGRAHAM v STATE"
Results 21 - 40
of 43
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2018, 10:52 am
Frost: (then-Clerk of the Court) On March 21, 2011, the appellee, the State of Ohio, filed a motion seeking my recusal from State v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 8:17 am
Did it merely eliminate state laws that either mandated or permitted school segregation? [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 5:04 am
The story of Ingraham v. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 12:30 pm
THURSDAY The Rights Revolution in Action: The Transformation of State Institutions after the 1960sThu, 6/7: 8:00 AM—9:45 AM, Sheraton Centre Toronto, Forest Hill · Chair/Discussant—Sara Mayeux, Vanderbilt University · Ingraham v. [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 3:58 am
Sellers, which asks when a federal court should “look through” a summary state-court ruling to review the last reasoned state-court decision. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 4:56 am
Yesterday, the court heard arguments in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 12:45 pm
In Wilson v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 6:15 am
Federal judge Joe Ingraham sentenced Ali to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 1:25 am
[the order potentially] would give every state in the world jurisdiction over Google’s search services. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 4:27 pm
For example, in United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 10:17 pm
” Ingraham v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 12:35 pm
Martinez drove the BMW south on Ingraham Street. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 3:05 am
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie that the defendants "[1] regularly do[ ] or solicit[ ] business, or engage[ ] in any other persistent course of conduct, or derive[ ] substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state," or "[2] expect[ ] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derive[ ] substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], [ii]; see… [read post]
CA11: Damage to door in attempt to enter, without entry, is de minimus for Fourth Amendment purposes
28 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm
Ingraham v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 8:41 am
Even so, the ruling in Ingraham v. [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 8:49 am
In Ingraham v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 3:02 am
The plaintiff failed to demonstrate prima facie that the defendants "[1] regularly do[ ] or solicit[ ] business, or engage[ ] in any other persistent course of conduct, or derive[ ] substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state," or "[2] expect[ ] or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derive[ ] substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" (CPLR 302[a][3][i], [ii]; see… [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 3:24 am
”[v] In making this point, Farmer cited the earlier case of DeShaney v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 7:06 pm
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 5th District.Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Mandatory minimum -- Armed Career Criminal Act -- Predicate convictions -- Prior felony possession of short-barreled shotgun was not violent felony under ACCA -- District court properly declined to sentence defendant under ACCAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
