Search for: "Crawford v. Short" Results 41 - 60 of 192
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Sep 2016, 12:03 pm by John Rubin
To make a long story short, these decisions rest on the phrasing of the first requirement for self-defense in murder cases. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 4:31 pm by Michael B. Stack
Needed a job and the insurance folks were hiring when I got out of college…we were in a recession at the time …Saw an ad for insurance consultant, applied- although I didn’t know what it was, got the job and the rest is history …When they moved work comp to HR, I drew the short straw!!! [read post]
5 May 2016, 6:59 am by MBettman
Reed, 2003-Ohio-6536 (extrinsic impeachment may be used when a witness says that he cannot remember making a prior statement) Crawford v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 6:06 am by Mark S. Humphreys
A case discussing self-defense is a Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion styled, Crawford v. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 8:20 am by Jeff Lazarus
Specifically, the testimony violated the confrontation clause and Crawford v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 7:31 am
That's the number of weeks that this weblog has been furnishing readers with short notes on all those Katposts that you might have missed last week. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:11 am
Here's the 39th Never Too Late compilation of short notes on all those Katposts that you might have missed last week. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 9:55 am by John Elwood
Since we covered most of the new relists in our earlier trek through Kansas, this will be short. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 10:04 am by Joy Waltemath
The reductions allegedly resulted in employees being shorted on pay, including overtime pay. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 2:42 am by Amy Howe
” First Impressions, the Michigan Law Review’s online forum, is hosting a symposium to mark the tenth anniversary of the Court’s decision in Crawford v. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 5:13 pm by Joey Fishkin
 The first challenge to a photo ID law to reach the Supreme Court—Crawford v. [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 3:46 am by SHG
The codefendant’s statements by which she inculpated defendant, were testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant, whom defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]). [read post]