Search for: "State v. Livingston"
Results 381 - 400
of 505
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2010, 6:42 am
The district court said this was inadmissible hearsay, but it isn't, the Court of Appeals (Hall and Livingston) says. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 5:21 am
The court found that Michael's opinion was contradicted by decedent's medical records and the testimony of her physician, who stated that decedent was in full control of her faculties during an examination on the day that she executed the 2015 Will. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 6:49 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Hall, Livingston & Newman, JJ.) heard oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 3:09 pm
The court accordingly remanded for a de novo sentencing.United States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2009, 3:00 pm
In another note of distinction, Secretary Cortés-Vázquez is proud to be the first Hispanic to hold the position of Secretary of State of New York. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 8:43 am
Wood, October 27, 2022, Livingston, D.).Underlying facts. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 4:18 am
”To bolster its conclusion that questions 2-4 were unconstitutional, Justice Livingston's opinion cited the Supreme Court case of Minnesota v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 10:10 am
That is according to attorneys who have asked a state district court to delay his death. [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 4:41 pm
In a case styled Enmund v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
EEOC v. [read post]
11 Nov 2024, 4:00 am
Livingston Holdings LLC, 2024 WL 3833548 (Miss. [read post]
21 Sep 2023, 7:20 am
COVID-19 Pandemic Issues The Honorable Susan V. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 7:33 am
” “Michael V. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 8:55 am
Inc. v. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 1:35 pm
& A. 1943) (stating in a will context Such burden does not shi [read post]
11 May 2011, 7:00 am
Livingston, 623 F.Supp.2d 782 (W.D. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 6:09 am
"The case is Cox v. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 10:25 am
This is the holding from Parsons v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 10:15 am
This is a creative effort, but the Court of Appeals (Sack, Livingston and Lynch) is not buying it.We conclude that, notwithstanding Staub [v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 4:05 am
Livingston v. [read post]
