Search for: "Langford v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 64
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2017, 6:29 am
Langford, 16-886 Issues: (1) Whether a state court unreasonably applied this court’s cases under Section 2254(d)(1) when it held that a misplaced adverb in one jury instruction on state law did not violate federal due process; and (2) whether the U.S. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
Schiro No. 18-0278 (Tex. 2019) (attorney fee award based on fee-shifting statute reversed and remanded for redetermination).Cognate Place Name ROHRMOOS VENTURE, ERIC LANGFORD, DAN BASSO, AND TOBIN GROVE, Petitioners,v.UTSW DVA HEALTHCARE, LLP, Respondent. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 3:47 pm
SOURCE: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS - 05-10-00173-CV - 12/15/11 The Homebuyers' attorney stated his attorney's fees were $29,944.75, and he had deleted $5477.50 from his bills relating to the proceedings against Langford. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 7:15 am
Langford, issued on June 8. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 4:00 am
Law):Shital Prakash Kharat, Effect of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 – Judicial Response, (February 6, 2017).Grant Robert Hooper, From the Magna Carta to Bentham to Modern Australian Judicial Review: Themes of Practicality and Spirituality, (Australian Institute of Administrative Law (AIAL) Forum, Vol. 84, pp. 22-44, 2016).From SSRN (LGBT Rights):Reva Siegel, Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Consensus, Conflict, and Constitutional Culture, (February 9, 2017).Susan Frelich Appleton,… [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 7:51 am
Dominion v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 2:22 pm
Langford 16-886 Issues: (1) Whether a state court unreasonably applied this court’s cases under Section 2254(d)(1) when it held that a misplaced adverb in one jury instruction on state law did not violate federal due process; and (2) whether the U.S. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 1:36 pm
See Langford v. [read post]
13 Feb 2021, 4:05 am
Langford v. [read post]
25 Jan 2020, 1:59 pm
Randy Beck and John Langford argued for the revival of qui tam statutes as a check on executive officials. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 4:34 pm
From Westenbroek v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
Hill, 147 N.E.2d 321, 325 (Ill. 1958) (“a vested right to punitive, exemplary, vindictive or aggravated damages arises only when such damages have been allowed by a judgment); Langford v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
Hill, 147 N.E.2d 321, 325 (Ill. 1958) (“a vested right to punitive, exemplary, vindictive or aggravated damages arises only when such damages have been allowed by a judgment); Langford v. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 3:08 pm
Rick Seller did not respond to Langford's question, and Langford asked, “Where did you spray? [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 4:07 pm
From Weisenbach v. [read post]
29 May 2010, 11:33 am
United States to Al-Haramain v. [read post]
14 May 2015, 2:15 pm
Kim, that under United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 11:15 am
It is hosted by Völkerrechtsblog and brilliantly co-organized by Justine Batura (Völkerrechtsblog), Anna Sophia Tiedeke (Völkerrechtsblog) and Michael Riegner (University of Erfurt; co-founder of the Völkerrechtsblog), who will feature as guest editor of the Symposium. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 4:00 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 2:22 pm
It is hosted by Völkerrechtsblog and brilliantly co-organized by Justine Batura (Völkerrechtsblog), Anna Sophia Tiedeke (Völkerrechtsblog) and Michael Riegner (University of Erfurt; co-founder of the Völkerrechtsblog), who will feature as guest editor of the Symposium. [read post]
