Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 4701 - 4720
of 16,703
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2015, 6:52 pm
The plaintiff cites but one Connecticut decision--and research has failed to reveal any others--DeGolyer v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 6:47 am
Jirak v. [read post]
16 Nov 2013, 4:31 pm
At the time of defendant's trial, polygraph tests had not been proven to be reliable as held in People v Leone. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:18 am
The media cross appealed on the question of the application of Article 10. [read post]
21 May 2021, 2:47 am
In its judgment in Amaghlobeli and Others v. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 3:39 pm
Since the United States Supreme Court holding in Crawford v. [read post]
13 Jun 2020, 11:16 am
This puppy has nothing to do with the caseState v. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 6:33 am
The earliest cases involved entities like the Bank of the United States; the most recent one is a 1992 decision, American National Red Cross v. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 4:05 pm
Arden v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 10:06 am
On cross-examination, [Orozco] attempted to explain why the images of child pornography were detailed on more than one hard drive. [read post]
28 Oct 2009, 6:51 am
See Comer v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 4:56 am
On March 1, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) held in Rodríguez-López v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 8:07 am
Facts: This case (Radiologix, Inc. et al v. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 10:10 am
In Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al v. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 3:55 pm
State v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 7:00 pm
The case is Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:42 pm
The CR 2A agreement is confusing; portions are interlineated, sections are crossed out, and some crossed-out sections have adjacent notes stating, “Back in. [read post]
7 May 2010, 12:39 am
Co. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 7:44 am
Cross , Wetzel v. [read post]
1 May 2010, 7:20 am
I recognize this is not the main point discussed below, but I think it is a point worth emphasizing in the context of fairly ill-informed cross-professional comparisons. [read post]
