Search for: "State v. Young" Results 7881 - 7900 of 8,896
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jul 2009, 2:36 pm
” Since it was Justice Scalia that first announced, in Employment Division v. [read post]
8 Jul 2009, 3:41 am
R (P) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] EWCA Civ 701; [2009] WLR (D) 234 “Where it was contended, pursuant to art 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, that the state should investigate the treatment accorded to a self-harming young [...] [read post]
Now it's poised to determine if youths should face life without a chance of parole.by Lewis BealeMiller-McCuneJuly 7, 2009The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Roper v. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 8:59 pm
Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry (Hooper v. [read post]
4 Jul 2009, 5:50 pm by Jason Krebs
Retailer Name Street Address City State 1 Yoss Thriftway Old 71 Highway P.O. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 8:05 am
On July 1, 2009, District Court Judge Deborah Batts entered an Order in the Salinger v. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 8:03 am
This provision builds off of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Wyeth v. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:00 am
Weaver (involving a GPS device) from the facts of the most factually similar federal precedent, United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 2:47 pm
  Applying this rule to the facts at hand, the Court ensured equal access to bad beer regardless of sex by striking down an Oklahoma law that permitted young women between the ages of 18-21 -- but not their young male counterparts -- to buy 3.2% beer. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 10:34 am by Matt Cameron
The Massachusetts statute authorizing the use of state forensic examiners specifically states that all reports produced by these individuals are sworn statements to be created “for the enforcement of law. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 1:17 am
8Circuit.png In trial for the production, distribution and possession of child pornography, affirming exclusion of defense expert testimony that the defendant "was not a pedophile and was not sexually attracted to young girls" to explain his "motive for taking the photographs" as irrelevant to the issue of the "sexual character" of the images, in United States v. [read post]