Search for: "Held v. State"
Results 5161 - 5180
of 82,195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2011, 12:00 am
On December 5th, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a Fourth Amendment case, Messerschmidt v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 9:38 am
On June 9, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Williams v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 10:44 am
Ali v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 7:02 am
Coneff v. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 12:03 pm
San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 2:57 am
Supreme Court Decides Jones v. [read post]
22 Nov 2015, 6:57 am
The Supreme Court in Kahn v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
The court held that Section 3 did notapply because the Presidency, which Section 3 does notmention by name, is not an “office . . . under the United3Cite as: 601 U. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 3:28 am
The Court of Appeals found that the underlying statute clearly and unambiguously stated that in banc review was to be conducted by "incumbent" judges, being those appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:15 pm
Superior Court of California, Orange County 13-956 Issue: Whether the California Court of Appeal erred when it deepened an acknowledged circuit split and held—contrary to this Court’s decisions in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 6:26 pm
United States and Drope v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 4:47 pm
Randall Hodgkinson won in State v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 7:58 am
State v. [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 6:39 am
To use United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 5:19 pm
As we wait for the United States Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in AT&T v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 8:30 pm
Pinholster, which held that habeas review is limited to the record that was before the state court; and (3) whether the decision of the Second Circuit affords the state court the deference required by 28 U.S.C § 2254(d), as interpreted by this Court in Harrington v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 1:34 pm
Tasini v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:22 pm
Tasini v. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 6:46 am
The Supreme Court recently held in Timbs v. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 6:01 pm
On 14.07.2017, a two-judge Bench of the High Court of Madras passed a judgement in the case of Raj TV v Thaicom (OSA No. 113/2017 & CMP 7665/2017)(MANU/TN/2117/2017). [read post]
