Search for: "State v. Cross #1" Results 21 - 40 of 8,314
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2010, 11:08 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Latimer argues that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to conduct the proper evidentiary analysis and failed to explain its decision; (2) refused to allow Latimer to obtain a statement relevant to the proceedings; and (3) refused to [...] [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 9:39 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Latimer argues that the trial court erred when it (1) failed to conduct the proper evidentiary analysis and failed to explain its decision; (2) refused to allow Latimer to obtain a statement relevant to the proceedings; and (3) refused to [...] [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 1:02 pm by Daily Record Staff
She raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the court abused its discretion in denying her ... [read post]
29 May 2022, 8:42 am by Russell Knight
Figueroa, 719 NE 2d 108 – Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 5th Div. 1999 There are three types of cross-examination: 1. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 7:13 am by Marty Lederman
Route 1 (Baltimore Avenue) and Maryland Route 450 (Bladensburg Road), surrounded by fast-moving vehicles. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 9:36 am by Josh Wright
  But the DOJ’s recent announcement of case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan looks like the DOJ’s first major “exclusionary” conduct case — despite the fact that it is brought under Section of the Sherman Act rather than Section 2 (there is also a state antitrust law claim). [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 3:24 am by James Scott
In March this year the Admiralty Court in London handed down its judgment in respect of a collision between “Alexandra 1” (“A1”) and “Ever Smart” (“ES”) (see: Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty)). [read post]