Search for: "JONES v. STATE." Results 5281 - 5300 of 6,829
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2010, 8:24 am by Adam Wagner
As Lord Woolf said in the case of Jones v Warwick, the principle that evidence can be obtained in whichever way one likes, whether illegally or not, must be at least concerning to society as a whole: While this approach will help to achieve justice in a particular case, it will do nothing to promote the observance of the law by those engaged or about to be engaged in legal proceedings. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
That issue was determined by the Appellate Term, 9th & 10th Judicial Districts, in [Jones] v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am by Steven M. Taber
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 5:39 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
Titan Auto Ins., Nationwide Ins, Jones, and Briel, March Term 2010, No. 03050 (Phila. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 2:47 pm by Dwight Sullivan
Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010), United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 11:59 am by Matthew Scarola
Ashby Jones, also at the WSJ Law Blog, highlights portions of Justice Thomas’s recent speech at the Utah State Bar’s 2010 summer convention. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 10:32 am by Brock Meeks
During her 11-year term in the AG's office, she argued before the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 35 states in State Oil v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 8:12 am by Anna Christensen
Following Tuesday’s Second Circuit decision in Fox v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:22 am by Kent Scheidegger
  We should insist, though, that the legislation creating the district also plug the single-juror veto loophole that the Supreme Court read into the federal death penalty law in Jones v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:00 am by Adam Wagner
As Lord Hoffmann said in the case of R v Jones [2006] UKHL 16, which involved defendants causing various forms of damage to military infrastructure in order to prevent the war in Iraq in 2003: … when Parliament speaks of a person being entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, the court must, in judging what is reasonable, take into account the reason why the state claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force. [read post]