Search for: "US v. Kenneth Gross"
Results 21 - 40
of 82
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2016, 8:50 am
Medical expenses can be deducted in the inheritance tax.Under United States Supreme Court Case, Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc., v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 5:00 am
In his recent decision in the case of Fassett v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 6:41 am
Guatemala and the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 6:41 am
Guatemala and the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. [read post]
3 Aug 2015, 11:29 am
Gross, in which the Court upheld the use of midazolam in Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, have asked the Supreme Court to rehear their case on the basis of Justice Stephen Breyer’s call in his dissent for a full re-examination of capital punishment. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 2:45 am
Lopez, Gonzalez v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 4:51 am
” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues that if Richard Glossip, the named petitioner in Glossip v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 7:52 am
Gross, in which the Court rejected a challenge to Oklahoma’s use of a sedative normally used to treat anxiety as the first drug in its three-drug lethal injection cocktail, comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice describes Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion – in which the Justice suggested that he and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regarded the death penalty as unconstitutional – as a “genuine surprise. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
Gross, the Court rejected a challenge to Oklahoma’s use of a sedative normally used to treat anxiety as the first drug in its three-drug lethal injection cocktail. [read post]
11 May 2015, 5:38 am
Gross, the challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, continue. [read post]
4 May 2015, 4:29 am
Commentary on Glossip v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 2:59 am
Gross, the challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 7:34 am
Forrence, Jr., Kenneth C. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 9:03 am
The constitutionality of having scientists, or specially qualified judges, serve as fact finders has never been clearly addressed.[6] Other commentators have argued in favor of the existing set of judicial tools, such as appointment of testifying “neutral” expert witnesses and scientific advisors for trial judges.[7] These approaches have been generally available in federal and some state trial courts, but they have rarely been used. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:26 am
Kenneth E. [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 8:58 am
[Estate of Ostlund v. [read post]
9 Nov 2013, 6:15 pm
(And it stays there).United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The number in parens is the number of times I've used the tag. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 6:26 am
Mission Corp. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 10:02 am
Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. [read post]
