Search for: "State v. Burden"
Results 6241 - 6260
of 22,159
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2010, 12:57 pm
Disimone v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 8:45 am
In any event, the applicant would bear the burden of proving her claim. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 3:06 pm
Case Name: Blakely v. [read post]
5 Jun 2006, 7:09 am
LLC v. [read post]
5 Jun 2006, 7:09 am
LLC v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 2:03 pm
Berghuis v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
John RobertsonWhole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Ninth Circuit Sends the Hawaii Concealed Carry Challenge Back Down to District Court
19 Aug 2022, 1:30 pm
The Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded this case to us "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:25 pm
Like other sanctuary cases currently in the federal courts, United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 12:36 pm
In Barbuto v. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 8:50 am
In the wake of the 2018 South Dakota v. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 4:17 pm
The Court could not make an award of “vindicatory” damages, merely to mark the commission of the wrong; this was wrong in principle: see R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 [97-100]. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 7:51 am
Estate of Wells, 325 Ark. 16 (1996)(party contesting validity of will has burden of proving by a preponderance that the testator lacked mental capacity or acted under undue influence); Pickens & Ashman v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 4:25 am
The first, from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, is United States v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 4:09 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Jessie Smith v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 10:10 am
DOJ Antitrust Division Head Christine Varney Offers Guidance on Leegin and Proposes "Structured Rule of Reason Test" For Evaluating RPM Under State Laws When the Supreme Court modified the prohibition against resale price maintenance agreements ("RPM") more than two years ago in Leegin Creative Leather Products v. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 11:52 am
Miller v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 1:16 pm
Lee 15-789Issue: (1) Whether, for federal habeas purposes, California’s procedural rule generally barring review of claims that were available but not raised on direct appeal is an “adequate” state-law ground for rejection of a claim; and (2) whether, when a federal habeas petitioner argues that a state procedural default is not an “adequate” state-law ground for rejection of a claim, the burden of persuasion as to adequacy rests on… [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 12:40 pm
Mark v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 6:55 am
That was the lawyers' burden to carry, per Ferguson v. [read post]
