Search for: "State v. Bias"
Results 4321 - 4340
of 5,337
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jun 2010, 11:13 pm
In the Ninth Circuit, reassignment is appropriate if personal bias or unusual circumstances are shown. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 1:17 am
The Supreme Court of Georgia's new opinion in State v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 10:31 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:24 am
Cybor Corp. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 8:08 pm
State v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 5:30 am
On Friday, I posted the complaint for BIA v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
A New York Times editorial points out that lawyers and courts are ignoring the landmark case of Batson v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 2:06 pm
Silicon Graphics v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:30 pm
"Nearly 25 years after Batson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 11:03 am
EJI today released a new report, “Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy,” which is the most comprehensive study of racial bias in jury selection since the United States Supreme Court tried to limit the practice in Batson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 7:28 am
EJI today released a new report, “Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: A Continuing Legacy,” which is the most comprehensive study of racial bias in jury selection since the United States Supreme Court tried to limit the practice in Batson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:48 am
Co. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:04 am
Rodriguez v. [read post]
29 May 2010, 4:23 pm
All state laws vary. [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:40 pm
” Due to the “the inherent bias in the” AERs, they “cannot be relied upon to form causation opinions. [read post]
27 May 2010, 10:30 am
In Gonzales v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 4:46 am
Posted by Sherry Colb In my FindLaw column this week, I discuss the case of Graham v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 7:09 pm
Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 2:16 pm
They report: “Every relator we interviewed stated that the financial bounty offered under the federal statute had not motivated their participation in the qui tam lawsuit. [read post]
25 May 2010, 12:13 pm
California is also the only state that never accepted federal funding under the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program. [read post]
