Search for: "Smith v. State"
Results 541 - 560
of 9,947
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2007, 10:02 am
EVIDENCEUnited States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 5:10 pm
EFF filed requests with the courts in two lawsuits, Smith v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The Court then explained: The United States Supreme Court, however, in Smith v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 8:06 am
The Court of Appeals reverses, the conviction stands, and Smith remains in jail.The case is Fischer v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:35 am
While there is no disputing Wal-Mart v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 12:41 pm
Smith's initial first state habeas petition was dismissed as untimely. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 8:13 am
Stern v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 2:11 pm
Similarly, while the narrow holding was that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it allowed some nonconsensual recordings -- particularly, body-worn cameras by police officers -- but not others, most state laws contain the same exceptions.So for states -- including California -- with two-party consent statutes, if the opinion stands, I doubt that most of them would survive. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:48 pm
On 8 March 2019, interim judgment was handed down in the apparently unremarkable case of Justyna Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospital Trust [2019] EWHC 552(QB). [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:53 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 11:52 am
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday in his case, Smith v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 5:02 am
The decision of Mr Justice Peter Smith in Sports Direct International plc v Rangers International Football Club plc and another [2016] EWHC 85 (Ch) to refuse to commit the respondent for contempt for alleged breach of an injunction shows the caution that the court will sometimes show when it comes to seeking to enforce injunctive relief. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 1:53 am
In Tamara Smith v. [read post]
27 Sep 2020, 6:36 pm
Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434; Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. [read post]
2 May 2015, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 10:27 pm
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Bullcoming v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 9:38 am
Kolarik, II In Smith v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
See Smith v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
The court cited SHAD Alliance v Smith Haven Mall, 66 NY2d 496, in which the Court of Appeal held that in order for a plaintiff to maintain such an action the plaintiff would have to allege facts that would show that the State [1] "is so entwined with the regulation of the private conduct as to constitute State activity"; [2] that "there is meaningful State participation in the activity"; or [3] that "there has been a delegation of… [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 7:00 am
In Smith v. the United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. [read post]
