Search for: "Davis v. State"
Results 5421 - 5440
of 6,177
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Dec 2008, 9:05 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 12:01 pm
December 19, 2008)Dismissing Petition for review of FAA order denying exemption from Pilot Age 60 RuleCAFC* Davis v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Davis, No. 07-1964 A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) although a vehicular safety statute involving dangling ornaments that police relied upon to make the stop at issue was unconstitutionally vague; 2) nevertheless, the exclusionary rule did not apply as police were relying in good faith on a presumptively valid statute. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 3:09 pm
Davis, 4850, 607/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9897; 2008 N.Y. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 10:46 am
Davis would have disclosed to Dr. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm
United States DOL, et al. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm
United States DOL, et al. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 5:35 am
Here is Justice Alito’s introduction in Davis v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 10:31 pm
" Judge Crichton's website can be found at this link, where one can find this August 2008 entry titled "Ruminations on Kennedy v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 11:23 am
" citing United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 11:06 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 8:47 am
In Microsoft v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 10:36 pm
Zaden v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 8:33 pm
In State v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 1:56 pm
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 8:51 am
Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the case of Cone v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 4:14 pm
See United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 8:20 am
Davis, __ F.3d __ (6th Cir. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 2:49 pm
See Davis v Creditors Interchange, 2008 Lexis 94906. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 11:52 pm
When this Court adopted the dominant purpose test, it did so in response to a similar move by the House of Lords in Waugh v. [read post]
