Search for: "State of Indiana v. Hoffman" Results 21 - 40 of 58
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2007, 4:46 am
State of Indiana - Terrance Hood seeks a reversal of his conviction for Voluntary Manslaughter, a Class A felony, contending that the State failed to rebut his evidence of self-defense. [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 10:53 am
State of Indiana , a 15-page opinion, Judge Vaidik writes:Following re-trial, Robert D. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 9:50 am
We reverse Castel's convictions and the judgment on the infraction and remand for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.In State of Indiana v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 10:24 am
McAdams, Reforming Entrapment Doctrine in United States v Hollingsworth, 74 U Chi L Rev 1795 (2007) Thomas J. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Kite, The History of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indiana Historical Society Press, 2007); Mark Edward Lender, "This Honorable Court": The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 1789-2000 (Rutgers University Press, 2006); John O. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.2d 806, 814 (5th Cir. 1992) (applying Mississippi law), which you can find later in this post.What happens when a heeding presumption is imposed concerning a risk warning? [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 10:18 am
United States (06-1509), Crawford v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 2007 WL 4042757, at *3 (N.D. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.2d 806, 816 (5th Cir. 1992) (applying Mississippi law). [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 917 A.2d 767 (N.J. 2007), reversed another case (relied upon by the Appellate Division), finding it improper to apply New Jersey product liability (not consumer fraud) standards nationwide.While we correctly predicted the result, we were dead wrong about the rationale the supreme court chose to get there. [read post]