Search for: "pfeifer"
Results 541 - 560
of 604
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2017, 6:38 am
Cross-Appeal Yes: Justices O’Neill, Pfeifer, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French. [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 10:16 am
In a 5-2 decision written by Justice French, in which Justices Lanzinger and Kennedy concurred in the syllabus and judgment only and Justices O’Neill and Pfeifer dissented, the court held that a deliberate-intent-to-injure insurance policy exclusion precludes coverage for all employer intentional torts, including those at issue in this case. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 6:53 am
“Even though as you said the legislature sets the rules, the court can say your rules are too extreme. [read post]
13 Apr 2008, 9:02 am
by Christine Hanley, Stuart Pfeifer and Christian Berthelsen, Los Angeles Times Staff WritersSex Offender Research, Recidivism and the Truth [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 8:03 am
Votes to Accept the Case Yes: Justices Kennedy, O’Neill, O’Donnell, and French No: Chief Justice O’Connor and Justices Lanzinger and Pfeifer Key Precedent Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the… [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 6:23 am
No: Justices Pfeifer, O’Donnell and Kennedy. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 10:50 am
Votes to Accept the Case Yes: Chief Justice O’Connor; Justices Pfeifer, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and O’Neill. [read post]
23 May 2016, 7:46 am
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 8:56 am
In a 5-2 opinion written by Justice French, joined by Chief Justice O’Connor and Justices Lanzinger, Pfeifer, and O’Neill, the court held that R.C. 2933.81(B) is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles, and that the presumption in that statute that electronically recorded statements made during custodial interrogation are voluntary does not affect the analysis of whether a suspect validly waived his Miranda rights, which is a separate issue. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 6:46 am
On July 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of Foley v. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 3:15 am
Pfeifer. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 6:48 am
”) Justice French, joined by Justice Pfeifer, focused more on due process, disagreeing that Broom had failed to establish that there is substantial risk that a second execution attempt presents an “objectively intolerable risk of harm,” and would have granted Broom an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction petition. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 1:15 pm
I have posted before about the curious saga of two university professors of economics who curiously tried to befriend the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 8:33 am
Justice Pfeifer joined this dissent. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 7:08 am
In a 4-3 decision written by Justice O’Donnell, for himself and Justices Pfeifer, Kennedy and O’Neill, the court held that L.P. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:25 am
The two dissenters, Lanzinger and Pfeifer, don’t even reach that issue. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 4:10 am
Probably the best hope for the defense would be to have the appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed — Pfeifer was beating the drum for that, quizzing the lawyers on whether the weirdness factors in the case prevented the court from addressing the real issue — but I don’t see him garnering three additional votes for that. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 8:58 am
Pfeifer, Jr., posted a link to an article he wrote, “Why Your Lawyer Won’t Take or Return Your Phone Calls—Top 10 Reasons. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 7:03 am
Votes to Accept the Case Yes: Chief Justice O’Connor, and Justices Pfeifer, Lanzinger, O’Neill, and French. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 4:09 pm
” Notably, the dissent offers no authority for these propositions, and indeed, in the entire 10-page dissenting opinion, only four cases are cited, none of which concern insult convictions: Fürst-Pfeifer v. [read post]
