Search for: "Rules of Evidence v. Rules"
Results 441 - 460
of 59,336
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2010, 1:35 pm
The New Mexico Supreme Court recently addressed the applicability of the misdemeanor arrest rule to DWI/DUI arrests in City of Santa Fe v. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 9:11 am
Daubert determined that “General acceptance” is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 9:37 am
Wilson v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:21 pm
Haase v. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
Rules are the same for DWI cases. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 12:28 pm
How does this rule differ from a prosecutor’s constitutional obligation pursuant to Brady v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 6:10 pm
In its opinion in Luce v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 7:09 am
In January of last year the Texas Supreme Court decided Hooks v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 5:21 pm
On July 9, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 2:39 pm
Federal Rule of Evidence 406 provides that Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct... [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 8:00 am
In Jennings v. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 8:00 am
In Jennings v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 9:05 pm
Co. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 8:35 pm
In today’s case (Jacobs v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:00 am
Not that PLIVA v. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 5:29 pm
Supreme Court case called Daubert v. [read post]
27 May 2020, 8:00 am
The Utah Rule of Evidence 702 is the virtually same as the Illinois Rules of Evidence as well as a the federal rules. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 7:55 am
Previously I was not aware that the Supreme Court did theme weeks, but in what seems to be Evidence Week at the S.C.C., I noted, with interest, the following article in the Globe and Mail earlier this week: A chance encounter that might rewrite the rules by Kirk Makin. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 5:58 am
State v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 3:23 am
"Here, said the court, there was substantial evidence supporting the Board determination that Ward had violated three Rules and Regulations of the Police Department as charged.Addressing the penalty imposed by the Police Commissioners, the Appellate Division said that the penalty imposed - dismissal -- was not so disproportionate to the offenses that Ward was found to have committed "as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness," citing a number of decisions… [read post]
