Search for: "Heard v. Hobbs"
Results 41 - 60
of 117
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2015, 4:00 am
Supreme Court in Holt v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 7:37 am
Case citation: U.S. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:51 am
The Court heard oral arguments in two cases yesterday. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 9:25 am
Hobbs — constitutionality of life-without-parole sentence for minor who commits murder Wed., March 21: 11-199 — Vasquez v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 1:54 pm
The first case, Miller v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:25 am
The two cases in which the Court heard arguments yesterday were Miller v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 5:06 am
While this appeal was made to Katfriend Daniel Alexander QC, in contrast with The Animals case, which was heard by Geoffrey Hobbs QC, the two cases share an unusual feature: in each of them the appellant's middle name is Victor. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 5:30 am
The Court recently heard arguments in Holt v. [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 11:50 am
The issue is whether such a recommendation qualifies as “property” under the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obtain property by threats. ** United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 3:00 am
Last week marked the 60th anniversary of Gideon v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 5:12 am
Board of Education] to find a comparable five-year period in which the justices heard no school cases. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 1:48 pm
Trump v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:28 am
Hobbs, in which the Justices heard oral argument last week on whether state prison officials can prohibit a Muslim inmate from growing a half-inch beard, matters. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 4:04 pm
On 19 January 2015, Warby J heard applications in the case of Simpson v MGN. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 7:09 am
Hobbs (09-10382). [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 12:30 pm
Hobbs and State v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 4:39 am
The Court also heard oral arguments in Hall v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 2:07 am
In Schmitz v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 2:46 am
Yesterday the Court also heard oral arguments in two cases. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 4:13 pm
Readers are entitled to accept Ms Haigh’s account if they wish, but in fairness, they are also entitled to know that judges have repeatedly heard the evidence about these claims and concluded that they were untrue. [read post]
