Search for: "STATE v. STEVENS"
Results 7001 - 7020
of 7,830
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2008, 3:47 pm
Justice Stevens’ dissent complained that the state of Virginia planned to execute Green before the Court had a full opportunity to review his legal claims. [read post]
27 May 2008, 12:21 pm
Therefore, we reverse Young's conviction.In State of Indiana v. [read post]
26 May 2008, 5:20 am
Attorney for State: James Martin, Indianapolis, IN. 10:45 AM - Juanita Ivers v. [read post]
26 May 2008, 1:45 am
See COTW blog here, discussing United States v. [read post]
25 May 2008, 2:05 pm
On Friday, Colonel Steven Folsom, the military judge presiding over LtCol Chessani's court-martial, apparently made a preliminary ruling on an unlawful command influence motion in the case. [read post]
25 May 2008, 9:13 am
On May 19, 2008 the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in U.S. v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 1:35 am
City of Hope National Medical Center v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 10:54 am
Steven J. [read post]
22 May 2008, 7:55 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
21 May 2008, 9:34 am
Justice John Paul Stevens, who voted with the 7-2 majority last month sanctioning a lethal injection protocol used by most death penalty states, believes that the late celebrated racehorse died a better death than most people executed in this country.The lethal injection index, with full coverage of Baze v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 10:27 am
Steven C. [read post]
20 May 2008, 9:14 am
Steven G. [read post]
20 May 2008, 7:28 am
Steven concurred on the ground that the beneficiary of the bond proceeds was the state. [read post]
20 May 2008, 6:31 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, 6521/05 v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 4:21 am
Medinol Ltd. v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 9:10 pm
Who voted in the five-justice majority in this U.S. v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 2:20 pm
" Justices Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer, filed a concurrence, explaining his view that in addition to the other limiting constructions in the majority opinion, the statute should be read to "contain an element of lasciviousness" - i.e., with the purposes of "inciting sexual arousal. [read post]
19 May 2008, 7:32 am
Continuing its somewhat puzzling approach (and voting paterns) in ACCA cases, the Supreme Court today in United States v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 7:14 am
Today’s opinion by Justice Stevens in United States v. [read post]
