Search for: "B. v. S."
Results 441 - 460
of 52,319
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2010, 11:51 am
Party A then wins at trial, and seeks cost of proof sanctions against both Party B as well as B's counsel for all the attorney's fees A incurred after the RFAs were sent. [read post]
5 May 2011, 2:01 pm
Chavis, 429 F.3d 662, 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (Cudahy, J., concurring) (describing Rule 404(b)'s exception for absence of mistake as "I thought [the drugs] were cough drops"); United States v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 9:18 am
On April 29, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Glossip v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 12:43 pm
S. 410 (1945); Auer v. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 9:55 am
In Cheeks v. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 5:12 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) provides that This subdivision (b) applies if more than 10 years have passed since the witness’s conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later. [read post]
8 Dec 2024, 4:51 am
In Admin. for Children’s Servs. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2017, 4:49 pm
Dimaya: Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:16 am
On appeal to this Court, Defendant challenges only the trial court’s STATE V. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 2:30 pm
APPEALUnited States v. [read post]
25 Dec 2020, 10:00 am
Evid. 804(b)(1). [read post]
5 May 2015, 5:03 pm
(See, e.g., Friends of Oroville v. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 12:54 pm
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in AMG Capital Management v. [read post]
24 Mar 2009, 6:00 am
Dukes v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 5:30 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 9:56 am
Section 16(b). [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 7:44 am
In the case of Matter of Martin B. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 7:43 am
The Sixth Circuit has a split panel ruling of note today in US v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 4:22 pm
See Black v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 8:20 am
Sixth Circuit notes evidence about the defendant's involvement in a prior marijuana transaction may have been admissible under FRE 404(b) to show intent or identity but trial court "fail[ed] to convey that distinct purpose to the jury" in its limiting instruction, resulting in reversal of conspiracy count, in United States v. [read post]
