Search for: "Com. v. Johnson, T."
Results 41 - 60
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2011, 3:35 am
The superiority of Johnson‘s simpler approach is displayed by the 12th District’s decision last week in State v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 3:38 am
The 2nd District, for reasons which aren’t entirely clear, rejects the argument… In State v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 3:36 am
The facts in State v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 3:45 am
Johnson, which held that felony murder and child endangerment should have merged. [read post]
29 Sep 2022, 5:16 am
The decision, Johnson v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 3:45 am
The prosecution doesn’t fare any better in State v. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:30 am
Griffin argues now that the judge can’t do that because, under State v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 3:35 am
Johnson, trying to determine whether attempted intimidation and menacing by stalking should have merged. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 3:57 am
Johnson came down, getting permission to file a supplemental brief on Johnson’s effect on the allied offense issue. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 5:06 am
Johnson last December.) [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 3:42 am
Well, the trial court in Johnson didn’t impose a fine, either, and the “single count of rape” which Johnson pled to resulted in a hardly inconsequential sentence of 10 years to life. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 3:51 am
Johnson (oral argument discussed here), that based on a 1936 Ohio Supreme Court decision, Ohio’s constitutional equivalent of the 4th Amendment doesn’t have an exclusionary rule. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 3:20 am
But Johnson didn’t roll the clock back to Vazirani. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 3:37 am
In State v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 3:47 am
Johnson, which had overruled State v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 3:44 am
Johnson obviously doesn’t permit defendants who were sentenced five, ten, or fifteen years ago from now contending that their cases should reopened so the sentences can be merged. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 4:58 am
Johnson, essentially overruling the test for merger of allied offenses established in State v. [read post]
