Search for: "Doe v. Massachusetts Trial Court" Results 641 - 660 of 1,282
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Aug 2019, 12:03 pm by David Duncan
  Those questions were addressed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Wallace W., a Juvenile v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 4:51 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Supreme Court to Hear Case Against Oil Companies for Alleged Human Rights Violations - New Orleans attorney Keith Hall of Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann on the firm's Oil & Gas Law Brief Does the First Circuit's Decision in Hannaford Signal a Changing Tide? [read post]
23 May 2022, 4:00 am by David Bilinsky
On May 12, 2022 the British Columbia Court of Appeal issued reasons in the case of: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 2:36 am
The CNR's are ex parte affidavits prepared solely for use at trial, and "[t]he Sixth Amendment does not permit the prosecution to prove its case via ex parte out-of-court affidavits. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm by Ronald Collins
I assume the same would hold true for the court’s ruling in McDonald v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 3:48 am by Russ Bensing
Does this pass the giggle test? [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:39 am by Phil Dixon
Massachusetts, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (Slip. op. at 9). [read post]
8 May 2013, 8:48 am by Kevin Russell
”  This rule reflects the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 11:03 am by John Elwood
Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 3:22 pm
Supreme Court handed down its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 11:04 am by Kent Scheidegger
  This is a point the Supreme Court has made before in Jones v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm by John Elwood
Massachusetts, 10-8835, which presents the Confrontation Clause at issue in Bullcoming v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 5:19 am by Susan Brenner
As Wikipedia explains, a harmless error is a ruling by a trial judge that, although clearly mistaken, does not meet the burden for a losing party to reverse the original decision of the trier of fact on appeal or to warrant a new trial. . . . [read post]