Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 7821 - 7840
of 16,708
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2015, 7:51 am
”Ashcroft v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:18 am
In, Panteleris v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:06 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Criminal Opinions Body: AC36087-State v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 11:47 pm
Recent state legislation related to biosimilars is an evolving, fascinating area of law—with some states affirmatively prohibiting biosimilar substitution. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 9:08 pm
Hodges) and Tennessee (Tanco v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 5:37 pm
Khunkhun v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 11:34 am
On cross-examination and without objection, he showed the Petitioner a copy of a "certificate of record" for the 2008 family offense petition and inquired if the matter was settled. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 8:10 am
Fort Worth life insurance lawyers need to read the 1983 case Gloria Cartusciello v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 3:41 am
In Kee v. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 7:19 am
Norris, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 574, 37 C.M.R. 194 (to be admissible, must be verbatim); United States v. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 12:00 am
"Yes, we do this sort of work, but the state also will appoint a lawyer to do it. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 12:51 pm
In some states, a finding of comparative fault - no matter how much or how little - will result in a defense win. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 10:08 am
Co. v. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 7:16 am
"The cross-appeal for a new trial is also rejected. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In Texas v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:31 am
Consider the case of Cabral v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
” State v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 10:14 pm
Culpepper v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 7:08 pm
The court noted that there are unusual circumstances in which silence will be admissible (People v Rothschild, 35 NY2d 355 [1974] [defendant police officer had a duty to report to his supervisors if he was taking the bribe money as part of a "sting"]; People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673 [1980] [defendant told police he shot victim during an altercation, properly cross-examined on his failure to make claim that victim was trying to rob him, as he testified at trial]). [read post]
