Search for: "T Diaz"
Results 681 - 700
of 1,492
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Dec 2011, 3:41 am
No, I don’t. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:52 pm
(Melendez-Diaz also makes clear that such consequences should not dissuade the Court from adopting a valid construction of he Confrontation Clause, but I don’t think it’s bad for the Court to subject its views to a reality check.) [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 4:51 pm
" The Governor -- who as Attorney General represented the state in the Diaz case -- didn't say much more about the decision, which was decided under federal (and not California) law. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 5:16 am
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 3:52 am
The court reversed itself after SCOTUS’ decision in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 12:27 pm
I think that in light of Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming, the Cellmark report here must clearly be considered testimonial. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 7:31 pm
" In Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 7:54 am
In 2009 in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 12:41 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 5:00 pm
f=1&t=294). [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 4:48 am
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Gov’t, 2011 U.S. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 1:57 pm
Well, we can all thank a little case call Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 8:59 am
These jobs don’t easily return to rural America. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 8:59 am
These jobs don’t easily return to rural America. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:42 am
I can’t find any record of the action by the ACCA. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 12:50 pm
Supreme Court in 2009 decided Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 5:27 pm
In, Diaz v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 10:39 am
The firm must make two more payments by next October — and it doesn’t have the cash.There’s no mystery about what should happen: The bondholders should take their losses.But not if Diaz gets his way. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 6:42 pm
DIAZ, Debtor. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 1:39 am
Manuel herself couldn't even see the roadway defect (the hole) and that it was trivial as a matter of law; successfully, that the damages verdict should be set aside because the trial judge should have told the jury that before it could award any pain and suffering damages it had to determine whether or not plaintiff's injuries qualified as "serious" under New York's Insurance Law Section 5102(d), one of the provisions of the so-called no fault insurance law;… [read post]
