Search for: "LEE v STATE"
Results 4281 - 4300
of 5,083
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2010, 10:15 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 10:54 am
Last week we learned that Judge Berchelmann doesn't think there should be any sanction imposed on Sharon Keller.Yesterday, we saw that the Supreme Court declined its own invitation to overrule (or at least weaken) Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 8:03 am
More on the Supreme Court's 2008 lethal injection ruling, Baze v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 10:01 am
Lee, 304 N.J. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 1:25 pm
Faced with the problem of how to provide legal counsel to those who cannot afford to hire their own attorney after Gideon v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 3:30 pm
& Lee L. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 11:50 am
Another case Lee v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 8:35 am
& Lee L. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 5:24 pm
Janice Lee and Bob Lee, No. 09-0313 (docket and briefs) In this case, a horse owner took a friend on a trail ride. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 8:20 am
STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 5:57 pm
The SSRN abstract states: Last term, in Ashcroft v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 10:11 am
In addition to this, all state public defender cases are included. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 9:00 pm
If the taxpayer anticipates “selling’ a property to complete the exchange, the taxpayer must acquire a property that is otherwise qualified and within Code §1031, as stated, above. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 2:04 pm
How Bad Has Kreiner v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 5:22 pm
After a detailed exposition of Michigan standing doctrine, the Court concluded that the county road commissions and the public works entities had failed to satisfy their burden of proving the necessary elements of standing, adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court in from federal standing doctrine in Lee v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 5:00 pm
In Bush v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 10:46 am
See State v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 4:37 am
(IP Litigation Blog) District Court E D Virginia: Stay pending reexam denied because a stay would result in ‘more significant’ prejudice given the Court’s overall speed in disposing patent cases: Telecommunication Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
