Search for: "Perez v. Doe "
Results 441 - 460
of 883
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2024, 10:13 am
Alphabet LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 2:49 pm
Perez (Oregon)PennsylvaniaBMG v. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 11:06 am
Perez, 994 P.2d 874 (Wash. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 7:40 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 7:29 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
4 May 2010, 8:51 am
Perez, that court reasoned that a new trial after a mistrial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause as long as there was a “manifest necessity” for the mistrial, as reflected by the trial judge’s exercise of its “sound discretion”; moreover, the Michigan Supreme Court noted, the U.S. [read post]
22 Jun 2007, 12:37 pm
The State does not argue harmless error but commendably acknowledges that Perez's probable testimony would have been important to the defendant's case. [read post]
24 Nov 2019, 12:24 pm
In Perez v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 7:53 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 4:45 am
So Long, Secretary Perez: DOL Head’s Goodbye Message — via Wage & Hour Insights Ochoa v. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 6:32 am
The Court of Appeals (Kearse, Parker and Perez) affirms the attorneys' fees award. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 9:25 am
The Court of Appeals says plaintiffs may have a case.The case is Perez v. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 7:36 am
” In other words, after the US Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Perez v. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 3:40 pm
Hinojosa-Perez, 206 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2000). [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 6:04 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 12:43 pm
State, former Judge Jorge Perez gets the "A" for effort and does not join the judicial wall of shame. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 3:44 pm
Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4 (2001); Perez v. [read post]
4 May 2010, 11:31 am
(People v. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 12:48 pm
Now in the recent case of People v Perez, decided December 18, 2017 the Court of Appeal reversed a conviction for a gang crime in a case where there just wasn’t any evidence to support the testimony that it was done for the benefit of the gang. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 12:48 pm
Now in the recent case of People v Perez, decided December 18, 2017 the Court of Appeal reversed a conviction for a gang crime in a case where there just wasn’t any evidence to support the testimony that it was done for the benefit of the gang. [read post]
