Search for: "Light v. State"
Results 661 - 680
of 29,195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2014, 7:11 pm
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., as courts in at least seven states (including the court below) hold; or, instead, (2) use the rational-factfinder test of Jackson v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am
Supreme Court in South Dakota v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 8:50 am
The question of when a criminal defendant is entitled to a do-over because his lawyer failed to correctly advise him of the immigration consequences of a conviction in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 9:15 am
Justice Sotomayor worries about additional undisclosed evidence coming to light after the state proceedings are concluded. [read post]
4 Jul 2014, 11:11 am
Just last month, in Bond v. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 2:45 pm
(Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, January 21, 2020, Techno Lite, Inc., v. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 9:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
Harris v. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 3:47 pm
And Roby v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 12:14 pm
(remanding case to NMCCA for further consideration in light of United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 3:13 am
The Court considered the principle established in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Onibiyo [1996] QB 768, that it was for the Secretary of State to decide whether further submissions constituted a fresh claim giving rise to a right of appeal. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 2:03 pm
See Tamkin v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 2:03 pm
See Tamkin v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 7:41 am
State Baldwin v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 12:27 pm
In Lacey v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 6:00 am
She objected for lack of foundation, hearsay, and violation of the right of confrontation stated in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:55 am
On June 7, 2018, the USPTO issued new guidance to its examining corps in the form of a memorandum discussing the Federal Circuit’s April 13, 2018 decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 10:42 am
§ §1331 et seq.) did not preempt a state-law claim for deceptive advertising of light cigarettes. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 6:58 am
In an earlier post on this blog, I considered the potential impact on the First Amendment of Thomas J’s originalist reasoning in the Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, and found some distinctly chilly zephyrs. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 1:04 am
The State should have affirmatively advised the trial court that such report either did or did not exist or, if the State was likewise uncertain, ought to have sought from the court the opportunity to clarify whether such report was made. [read post]
