Search for: "Butler v State" Results 641 - 660 of 931
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2018, 8:02 am by Andrew Hamm
He was not able to avoid the issue in Buck v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 1:42 pm by John Elwood
Butler, 13-430; and Whirlpool Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 3:56 pm by Timothy P. Flynn
 The federal appellate court also believed the state appellate court got the facts of Thompkins' interrogation wrong.The 6th Circuit relied on the prior and seminal SCOTUS decisions of Miranda v Arizona and North Carolina v Butler, which establish an accused individual's right to remain silent, and imposes a "heavy burden" on the state to demonstrate that a suspect, once advised of this right, has waived his privilege against… [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 5:19 am by Timothy P. Flynn, Esq.
 The federal appellate court also believed the state appellate court got the facts of Thompkins' interrogation wrong.The 6th Circuit relied on the prior and seminal SCOTUS decisions of Miranda v Arizona and North Carolina v Butler, which establish an accused individual's right to remain silent, and imposes a "heavy burden" on the state to demonstrate that a suspect, once advised of this right, has waived his privilege against… [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 4:09 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Much later, the State amended its answer to allege fault by the City of Clarksville. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 9:28 pm by Lyle Denniston
In the challenge by 26 states to Congress’s decision in the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid coverage — an expansion that the states claim will simply bust their budgets – the states are relying upon the so-called “coercion theory.”  This has to do with the conditions that Congress tells states they must meet in order to qualify for federal funds to help pay for a public program. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 7:16 am by emagraken
Justice McEachern is cited where he said “I am not stating any new principle when I say that the Court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery…” This quote comes from the 1981 case Butler v. [read post]