Search for: "Williams v. Williams" Results 5841 - 5860 of 19,659
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2009, 7:35 am
On the heels of yesterday's long panel ruling finding a child porn downloader's sentence unreasonable as too harsh in Olhovsky (discussed here), the Third Circuit today  issued an even longer  en banc opinion in US v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 1:03 pm
To read the brief submitted by former SEC chairmen William H. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 11:44 am by Arianna Morseau
Grinnell-Davis, University of Oklahoma School of Social Work Judge William A. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 3:34 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Contrary to ACS's contention, the deprivation of the right to counsel is a [29 A.D.3d 1016] fundamental error warranting reversal (see Matter of Otto v Otto, 26 AD3d 498 [2006]; Matter of Miranda v Vasquez, 14 AD3d 566 [2005]; Matter of Knight v Griffith, 13 AD3d 449 [2004]; Matter of Vladimir M., 206 AD2d 482, 483 [1994]; Matter of Williams v Williams, 91 AD2d 1044, 1045 [1983]). [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 10:14 pm
Legal Washington’s best-kept secret leaked this afternoon, and by 10pm Pete Williams and then Nina Totenberg had confirmed that Justice Souter intends to retire. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 7:04 am by John Gould, Cornerstone Research,
Cornerstone Research was retained by Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, counsel for William Tennant in United States v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 4:00 am by Administrator
Williams Lake Indian Band v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 11:25 am by Evan Mix
 However, on May 4, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Williams v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 1:06 pm
Stanford student Beverly Moore previews Polar Tankers v. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 11:50 am
Williams 2011; State v Brooks 1989; Smith v State 1998; Wilson v. state 2004; Coleman v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 8:23 pm by Donald Thompson
 Not until counsel has been “repeatedly unconscious through not insubstantial portions” of even capital murder trials will prejudice to the defendant will be presumed (see, Muniz v Smith, 647 F3d 619 [6th Cir 2011]; Burdine v Johnson, 262 F3d 336, 340-41 [5th Cir 2001]; Tippins v Walker, 77 F3d 682, 685 [2nd Cir 1996]). [read post]