Search for: "Blake v. Blake"
Results 441 - 460
of 1,397
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2011, 10:01 am
Hill v. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 7:28 am
" This ruling came in State v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:49 am
In Beverley Blake v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 6:31 am
Middletown In 2012, in Clifton v. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 3:34 pm
Thanks to How Appealing, I saw this article in the latest issue of the Harvard Law Record headlined "Profs: District of Columbia v. [read post]
16 May 2007, 9:53 am
Amidst lots of thoughtful sentencing work by Sixth Circuit judges recently (examples here and here), Judge Martin's dissent in Valentine v. [read post]
29 May 2007, 7:51 am
Significantly, the Justices denied cert today in Washington v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Blake, Mr. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Blake, Mr. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 6:23 am
That's the rule in Ruggiero v. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 4:31 pm
Luxottica Group et al. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 9:50 am
" The Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentencing court–by imposing consecutive sentences based on its own findings and not based on jury findings–violated respondent’s rights under the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi and Blakely. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 9:30 am
"The federal court's March 31 decision in the case of U.S. v. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 9:32 am
(The specific issue was Booker retroactivity back to Blakely, as opposed to Apprendi.) [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 6:59 am
EDT, the justices will hear oral argument in Food and Drug Administration v. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 7:42 am
Here’s the Thursday morning read: As Supreme Court weighs abortion drug, a look at pill usage since Roe v. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 9:32 am
In Thistlethwaite v. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 9:32 am
In Thistlethwaite v. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 12:09 pm
Blake’s Records: MetLife pointed to Dr. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 2:55 pm
Blake Holdings: (1) In a transaction between merchants, an acceptance that contains the words “subject to” along with additional terms does not render the acceptance “expressly made conditional on assent to the additional terms” for purposes of Section 2-207(1) of the Commercial Law Article. (2) In a transaction between merchants, objection to the condition of goods and the return of such goods is not a timely objection of additional terms in an acceptance for… [read post]
