Search for: "Jones v. State Bar (1989)" Results 41 - 60 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2016, 6:51 am by Jeff Welty
App. 1989) (generally adopting the view that officers may photograph anything in plain view, and collecting cases); State v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 2:32 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Jones seeks to have applied here--that a state may not arbitrarily inflict the death penalty--is not new. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 8:52 pm by firemarkVA
The sports bar is now the subject of lawsuit by Sony Pictures for trademark infringement. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm by Marty Lederman
  So, too, in 1989 the Court appointed John Roberts, currently the Chief Justice, as amicus to defend the judgment below in United States v. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 4:54 am by Steve Lombardi
They also challenge the district court's order barring certain evidence on retrial. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 9:41 am
 Similarly, Texas law provides that the election and removal of officers inunincorporated associations must be governed by the association’s own rules.The Diocese elected Bishop Iker according to diocese rules; the Plaintiffs did not.Under Jones v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 8:15 pm by Anthony Frost
Coronahttp://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii34/1989canlii34.html. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 11:37 am by Katherine Gallo
  SANCTIONS Discovery sanctions are not reported to the State Bar. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 11:37 am by Katherine Gallo
SANCTIONS Discovery sanctions are not reported to the State Bar. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 1:02 pm by Ken
Stephens is a lawyer; certainly he does not appear to be a member of the California Bar nor the Texas Bar in the light of my visit to the California Bar Association’s and the State Bar of Texas’s websites. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 12:14 pm by Dianne Saxe
            Did the trial judge err in failing to hold that the claim was time barred under s. 45(1)(g) of the Limitations Act? [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm by Christa Culver
HarrisDocket: 10-224Issue(s): (1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a “presumption against preemption” requires a “narrow interpretation” of the Federal Meat Inspection Act's express preemption provision, in conflict with this Court's decision in Jones v. [read post]