Search for: "LANDRIGAN v. STATE"
Results 21 - 40
of 90
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2016, 8:01 pm
Hardwick 15-1379 Issue: (1) Whether the Eleventh Circuit may reject the state court’s findings of fact under Anderson v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
For instance, in the Landrigan and Caterinichio cases, cited below, the doubling issue arose not as an admissibility question of expert witness opinion, but on motions for directed verdict. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 9:24 am
In re Accutane, 2015 WL 753674, at *17; see also id. at *5 (citing Landrigan v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 10:39 am
& A. 1910)); see also State v. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm
That goal ultimately came to have bipartisan support in the United States, largely as a result of Selikoff’s advocacy. [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 9:53 pm
See Landrigan v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:20 pm
Landrigan, Barry S. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
United States, 597 F. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 11:22 am
Landrigan v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm
Brock v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 5:41 am
” Landrigan v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 11:52 am
Haack at 6 (citing Tehan v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Div. 1991) Landrigan v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 1:40 pm
” Landrigan v. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 2:17 pm
Landrigan nor Michael Williams v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 9:15 am
Landrigan, 550 U. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Div. 1991) Landrigan v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 8:39 am
The civil law suit, Beaty v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Landrigan 62 Fla Law Rev 721 (2010). [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 6:58 am
Landrigan, 550 U.S. at 473-74, 127 S.Ct. at 1939-40 (“AEDPA also requires federal habeas courts to presume the correctness of state courts' factual findings unless applicants rebut this presumption with ‘clear and convincing evidence. [read post]
