Search for: "Blood v. Blood"
Results 6381 - 6400
of 7,199
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2009, 3:21 pm
The evidence at trial failed to show that defendant was guilty of DUI drugs because there was no blood test to confirm it. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 3:09 pm
In People v. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 3:58 am
The text "guilty of misleading the American public" was at issue in the Lanham Act case Groden v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 12:00 pm
A major DUI decision was issued by the California Supreme Court in People v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:49 pm
This week, an appeals court ruled on the latest case to come down the pike (er, the tracks) - Bacic v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 3:58 am
iStock_000000100546_L2.jpg Evidence that murder defendant's victim had steroids in his blood when he was killed attempting to execute an arrest warrant on the defendant was properly excluded because the evidence was not relevant to defendant's claims of self-defense, in United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 8:17 pm
The California Supreme Court has ruled that breath tests don't always mean someone is intoxicated even if the result is above the legal limit of .08, People v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 4:54 am
See Wells v. [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 8:53 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 10:42 am
V. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 7:25 pm
After getting a chance to actually read the majority and dissenting opinions in Cumo v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 12:40 pm
This stems from a 2004 Michigan Supreme Court decision called Kreiner v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 8:38 am
Yesterday, in State v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 4:56 am
See Prince v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 8:31 pm
This week we brought her back because she was bleeding from the rectum; the doctor ordered a blood transfusion but the nurses forgot to order the blood from the blood bank. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 12:21 pm
In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 12:17 am
R v. [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 6:17 pm
Stupak v. [read post]
