Search for: "State v. Johnson #2" Results 681 - 700 of 3,529
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2011, 7:25 pm by Michael O'Hear
 But you can now add to the list the Seventh Circuit’s decision last week in in United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 3:30 am
 The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Johnson v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 6:04 am by Jennifer Davis
Today is the 50th anniversary of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s swearing-in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 2, 1967. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 9:11 pm
People v Myles, 58 AD3d 889, 890-892 [3d Dept 2009] [a consumer of electricity could be guilty of falsifying business records for bypassing the electric meter, causing it to falsely record the amount of electricity used]; People v Johnson, 39 AD3d 338, 339 [1st Dept 2007] [a co-defendant of public assistance applicant could be guilty of falsifying business records of the agency]; People v Smith, 300 AD2d 1145, 1146 [4th Dept 2002] [defendant could be… [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 12:39 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals this week issued an odd and confusing opinion in a case styled Johnson v. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 10:53 am by Howard Friedman
The remainder of the case was dismissed.In Johnson v. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 5:45 pm by Anna Christensen
United States (1997) and United States v. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
IPSO has published a number of rulings and resolutions statements since our last Round Up: 02805-19 Luck v Mail on Sunday, 10 Clandestine devices and subterfuge (2018), 2 Privacy (2018), No breach- after investigation 02343-19 Harvey v Bristol Post, 1 Accuracy (2018), No breach- after investigation 07026-18 Tindal v Sevenoaks Chronicle, 1 Accuracy (2018), Breach- sanction: action as offered by publication 01243-19 Haycox v The Sunday Times, 1 Accuracy… [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 5:47 pm
State of Indiana , a 29-page, 2-1 opinion, discusses several significant issues at length, including the State's ability to amend the charging information under IC 35-34-1-5 and whether application of the amended version of the statute to the defendant violates ex post facto laws, as the dissent writes. [read post]