Search for: "People v. Givens"
Results 5161 - 5180
of 17,550
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2008, 1:10 pm
It appears that Georgia attorneys representing injured people may have to give up on direct attacks on the state adoption of Daubert, and do the harder work in each case of beating defense Daubert motions and making offensive use of Daubert against defense expert. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 11:52 pm
Brenneman v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 2:30 pm
Registration rate is really high, not surprising given lack of relative examination. [read post]
24 May 2012, 3:46 am
We’ve been talking about Missouri v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 5:24 am
Mapp v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 3:51 pm
In State v. [read post]
27 May 2013, 10:02 am
Lancaster, in Clark v. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 4:23 pm
Judgment was given on 2 October 2018 by Douglas J ([2018] QSC 219 [pdf]). [read post]
17 Oct 2021, 6:52 pm
V. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
During oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
13 Feb 2011, 2:43 am
Marshall’s most famous decision — Marbury v. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 9:00 pm
Here, vaccine attorney Leah V. [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 9:01 pm
In his March 8, 2017 decision in Dawn M. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 11:20 am
Hansen Beverage Co. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 5:44 am
This is the text of a Keynote address given by Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division at the Law Society’s Family Law Annual Conference ‘The sacred and the secular: religion, culture and the family courts’ on London 29 October 2013 (H/t to Adam Wagner) Only a little over a century ago, in 1905, a judge in a family case could confidently opine that the function of the judges was “to promote virtue and morality and to… [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 3:03 am
By most accounts, oral argument in Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 7:01 am
Annuities v. lump sums: younger people opted for the annuity versus the lump sum more than older people across all conditions. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 6:29 am
Arenas v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:13 am
For a £14bn case, to say that the applicant could not have given more thought to evidential issues is incorrect. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 2:13 pm
But as the Supreme Court held in United States v. [read post]
