Search for: "Davis v. THE STATE"
Results 4201 - 4220
of 6,204
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
State v. [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 8:13 pm
Two more notable examples came across my desk just today: In US v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 3:43 pm
Under Davis v. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 9:01 pm
" blank">Yap v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 8:21 am
The judgments in question are these: BT v CU [2021] EWFC 87; [2022] 1 WLR 1349 (1 November 2021) A v M [2021] EWFC 89; [2022] 1 FCR 445 (9 November 2021) Aylward-Davies v Chesterman [2022] EWFC 4; [2022] 2 FCR 541 (4 February 2022) Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30; [2022] 2 FCR 712 (12 April 2022) XZ v YZ [2022] EWFC 49 (20 May 2022) (this being the decision granting an interim RRO in the case later reported as Gallagher v… [read post]
19 May 2024, 10:13 pm
As mentioned above, on the same day a statement in open court was read out in the case of Davies v BBC–KB-2024-000828. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:02 pm
In non-affirmative action cases like Washington v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 7:08 am
California and United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2018, 11:43 am
Davis and Helvering v. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 7:49 am
Licci v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 7:38 am
Title: Davis v. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
Further supporting that the Supreme Court will not retreat from Crawford is Davis v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 5:12 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Seth Davis weighs in on Kerry v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 5:09 am
In United States v. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 9:10 am
The judgment in the Court of Appeal was given by Nicola Davies LJ, with whom McCombe and Coulson LJJ agreed. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 12:38 pm
United States, 17-646, Tyler v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 3:37 pm
" See Davis & Schulman § 8:1. [read post]
20 Aug 2017, 4:53 pm
On 11 August 2017, Nicola Davies J handed down judgment in the libel case of Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 (QB). [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 4:26 pm
Justice Davies found that Mr Shao had contravened s.674(2A). [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 2:59 am
(And keep in mind that in Davis v. [read post]