Search for: "v. Atkins"
Results 501 - 520
of 901
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm
The Court heard nine cases during the March session when Michigan v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 4:45 pm
Cain13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner's penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner's claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 6:18 am
He argues that “what Georgia — and other states — have done since” the Court’s decision in Atkins v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 7:33 pm
v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 11:21 pm
Rylands v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:05 am
On 14 December 2023 there was a set aside application in the case of McGee v Lewis before Collins Rice J. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 4:38 pm
Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986 (2014) and Atkins v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 7:49 am
That's just a tentative thought, however.What I find more interesting is the dog that doesn't bark in Rick's article, despite his extensive discussion of cases like Atkins v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 8:35 am
In the 2002 Atkins v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 6:12 pm
Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that it was unconstitutional to execute offenders with mental retardation in the case of Atkins v. [read post]
6 May 2018, 10:41 am
City of Concord (1868), Atkins v. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 7:37 am
Texas, finding bans on private homosexual activity unconstitutional; Atkins v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 10:43 pm
Supreme Court granted certiorari in in Cullen v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 7:31 pm
In June 2007, NMCCA ordered a DuBay hearing concerning Parker’s IQ to see whether he was affected by the Supremes’ Atkins ruling. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 8:17 am
â€" which was measured at between 68 and 86 â€" was at the the threshold for mental retardation, which the Court in Atkins v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 4:23 am
Constitution Daily looks at Peruta v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 4:52 pm
It is also worth recalling the words of Lord Atkin in Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384 at 386: It is precisely because the real damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 12:00 am
[v] N.L.R.B. v. [read post]
