Search for: "STATE v. GRIFFIN" Results 381 - 400 of 1,179
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Aug 2017, 3:14 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  For instance, he might set a criminal free for a reason which has nothing to do with the reliability of the evidence or the justice of the case.Orin Kerr at VC has this post on United States v. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 7:27 am
The purpose of probation is to serve as a `period of genuine rehabilitation.' (Griffin v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 7:37 am by Bill Marler
E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes E. coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body, as well as on the tail, or flagellum,[2] and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and animals.[4] The E. coli bacterium is among the most extensively studied… [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm
 39.Madam Justice Griffin, in finding that Ms. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 9:17 am by Quinta Jurecic
Robert Hannigan, Former Director, United Kingdom Government Communications HeadquartersMike Rogers, Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency Moderator: David Ignatius, Associate Editor and Columnist, The Washington Post   That Was ThenMichael Collins, Deputy Assistant Director, East Asia Mission Center, Central Intelligence AgencyBonnie Glaser, Senior Advisor for Asia; Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International StudiesKenichiro Sasae,… [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:15 am by Scott Bomboy
And in 1926, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft said in Myers v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 6:52 am by Daniel Cappetta
” In resolving that question, the Court “applied the four-factor test announced in [United States v.] [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 7:19 am by Joy Waltemath
Now that New York’s highest court has responded—limiting Section 296(15) to “employers” while concluding that an out-of-state nonemployer could be held liable for aiding and abetting discrimination—the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order to the extent it conflicted with the state court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings (Griffin v. [read post]