Search for: "State v. Harris" Results 4021 - 4040 of 5,196
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2011, 2:37 pm by Alfred Brophy
Law society and the environment Robert V. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 4:41 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Council of State Governments Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Soronen looks at the recent cert grant PDR Network, LLC v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
 The IEEE has gone as far as to suggest that the recent Supreme Court decision in Stanford v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 9:22 am
This kind of information was very valuable to the defense for its potential to discredit the eyewitness, and the foundational case Brady v. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, James Conde weighs in on PDR Network, LLC v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 9:27 am by Steve Hall
Under state law, it must be determined the inmate is unaware he is to be put to death and why. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 9:00 pm
Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal apologized for the wrongful conviction, which arose in connection with the crime lab's erroneous claim that no semen was found on the bedsheet involved in the rape. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 9:50 am by michael a. livingston
That a then Yale professor and later Federal judge (Ralph Winter) was the brains behind the original challenge to campaign finance laws, in Buckley v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 11:34 am
Still, with recent notable works like Nudge and thought-provoking posts like this one from Josh Wright (on Jones v. [read post]
14 Aug 2015, 6:46 am by Shea Denning
Yesterday, the Connecticut Supreme Court held in a 4-3 decision in State v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Cox, No. 07-1103 In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated… [read post]