Search for: "Moore v. Proper" Results 381 - 400 of 442
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Moore, No. 07-3434 Denial of an application for habeas corpus from a conviction and sentence for gross sexual imposition and rape is affirmed where petitioner's Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy was not violated because the requisite high degree of necessity existed for a mistrial. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 3:02 am by Aidan O'Neill QC, Matrix Chambers
The UK Parliament may therefore itself hold a UK dissolution/Scottish independence referendum or confer, on such conditions as it consider proper, power on the Scottish Parliament to make provision for such a referendum (see s 30 SA). [read post]
22 May 2012, 11:23 am by Steve Hall
"There are many cases where people are struggling and they don't have DNA, but they now have hope," Allen's attorney, Kris Moore of McKinney, Texas, told The Times. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 8:33 am
The Court noted their decisions in Moore and Jacobs offered insight regarding the proper interpretation and interplay of W.R.Cr.P. 35(b) and W.R.A.P. 6.01(b). [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 8:14 am by Editor Charlie
Moore, Adam, “Intellectual Property“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 04, 2008 US v. [read post]
10 Oct 2019, 10:03 am by Samuel Bray
Did Perkins did say anything about what the proper remedy would be in suits brought by parties that hadstanding or in suits that did implicate private rights? [read post]
18 Mar 2021, 9:33 am by Christopher Tyner
A traffic checkpoint had a valid programmatic purpose regardless of the fact that the location of the checkpoint moved throughout the evening State v. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 6:31 am by Andrew Dickinson
Here, a number of very interesting questions arise (apart from those identified above concerning the proper interpretation of Art. 4): Did Mr Jacobs’ claim against the MIB constitute a “civil and commercial” matter within Art. 1(1) of the Rome II Regulation? [read post]
  The Court was therefore asked to consider (i) the meaning of the requirement that the decision of a contractual fact-finder must be a “reasonable” one; and (ii) the proper approach of a contractual fact-finder who is considering whether a person may have committed suicide. [read post]