Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V"
Results 761 - 780
of 12,256
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Oct 2020, 8:21 am
I blogged earlier this summer about McGucken v. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 6:06 am
The case was Trump v. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 7:11 am
While litigating Briscoe v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 12:47 pm
I’m a little surprised the Court took Smith, both because it has not been through federal habeas (it’s coming directly up from the state court system) and because it’s basically an “error-correction” case — at least as framed by the cert. petition, the case does not really present any questions of law, but will instead require the justices to roll up their sleeves and sort through a rather complex evidentiary record to… [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 7:32 am
I’m a little surprised the Court took Smith, both because it has not been through federal habeas (it’s coming directly up from the state court system) and because it’s basically an “error-correction” case — at least as framed by the cert. petition, the case does not really present any questions of law, but will instead require the justices to roll up their sleeves and sort through a rather complex evidentiary… [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 8:26 am
United States, 391 U.S. 1(1968) (Defendant was convicted through the testimony of an IRS agent, attained while the defendant was incarcerated for another crime. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 11:17 am
While I suppose it could happen, it almost never does. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 10:08 am
The IAP can still invoke 512(a), and I expect it will. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 12:47 pm
Massachusettsthat a criminal defendant’s right to confront the witness against him includes the right to challenge the testimony of state crime lab technicians through cross-examination of those witnesses. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 12:17 pm
" Order ¶37 (quoting Freecycle Sunnyvale v. [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 9:50 am
I don't mean to doubt that Fortress is very good at what it does, and my commentary here on VoiceAge EVS's cases shows that I don't generally discount anything Fortress does--one has to look at the issues dispute by dispute, case by case. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:00 am
Exch. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 7:04 am
But then, it does. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 4:50 pm
See United States v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 9:27 am
Moreover, although Defendant questions Plaintiff's proof, Defendant does not actually dispute any of these numbers or claims. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 7:44 am
Wilson v. [read post]
4 May 2022, 10:48 am
Wyo.) in McCollum v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 9:01 am
I filed a motion to unseal and oppose pseudonymity last week in Doe v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 4:04 am
Williams v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
United States (upholding the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 666, as applied to a case where the specific conduct of a particular defendant was "a threat to the integrity and proper operation of [a] federal program") and Tennessee v. [read post]
