Search for: "STATE EX REL. v. Court of Appeals"
Results 641 - 660
of 2,056
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2017, 4:06 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 11:49 am
As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in United States v. [read post]
26 May 2017, 4:00 am
In People ex rel. [read post]
24 May 2017, 3:16 am
The Supreme Court of the United States defined what is considered illegal obscenity in what has become known as “the Miller test” from Miller v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 11:02 am
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held. [read post]
12 May 2017, 8:24 pm
In Lillbask ex rel Mauclaire v. [read post]
11 May 2017, 5:37 am
Just pay separateshipping and handling.State v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
8 May 2017, 8:20 am
This post examines an opinion from the Supreme Court of New Jersey: J.I. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 4:50 am
State ex rel. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 10:51 am
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals – the state’s court of last resort for criminal cases – rejected Moore’s challenge to his death sentence. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 9:05 am
The eight-member court did agree unanimously that state judges in Texas cannot be required to use seven intellectual capacity factors that the state's Court of Criminal Appeals had laid down in a 2004 decision (Ex parte Briseno), mainly because that ruling provided a list of non-scientific factors -- such as whether the individual could hide facts or lie effectively, and how friends and relatives personally evaluated the… [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 10:33 am
Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993) and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 10:16 am
Supreme Court from the 10thCircuit Court of Appeals, in which the Court will be asked to decide whether a disgorgement award in favor of the SEC constitutes a penalty or forfeiture within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 12:20 pm
State ex rel. [read post]
23 Mar 2017, 6:08 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 2:04 pm
The case is United States of America ex rel. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 8:41 am
Gray ex rel. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 11:54 am
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, with Gorsuch sitting by designation, acknowledged in Kastl v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 5:34 pm
Yet late last year, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in People ex rel. [read post]
