Search for: "*1**u.s. v. Barker"
Results 61 - 80
of 111
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2014, 6:45 am
See Barker, 407 U.S. at 531; Cantu v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 4:00 am
__________________________ [1] Redish et al., supra note 2 at 644-646. [2] See e.g., Bisaillon v. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 9:06 am
State v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 7:44 am
Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 7:34 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 3:19 am
Here they are: 1. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 2:58 pm
One of the most famous is Santa Clara Pueblo v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 6:14 am
The U.S. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:03 pm
In Peter's Excellent Motion to Dismiss he argued that Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) was controlling and that the following factors must be considered:1. length of delay - nearly four years, any time over one year between indictment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial2. reason for the delay - here government negligence to move the case forward and even gained a tactical advantage because the Defendant no longer had possible witnesses available for… [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:57 am
National Australia Bank [1] changed the landscape for U.S. investors. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:12 pm
Cintas Corp., where Judge Sean Cox from the U.S. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 8:20 am
This case was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-CV-00680-SEB-DML. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:09 pm
See Barker v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 7:12 am
CAAF published its opinion in U.S. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:48 am
The results generally did not show a statistical difference when controlling for (1) the presence of an Energy dispute, (2) the presence of a Latin American respondent, or (3) the respondent's Development Status. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:48 am
The results generally did not show a statistical difference when controlling for (1) the presence of an Energy dispute, (2) the presence of a Latin American respondent, or (3) the respondent's Development Status. [read post]
31 May 2011, 7:11 am
(Case No. 1:10-cv-533 (W.D. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 6:11 am
In Omychund v Barker (1745) 1 Atk, 21, 49; 26 ER 15, 33, Lord Harwicke stated that no evidence was admissible unless it was `the best that the nature of the case will allow’. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 11:53 pm
Judge William Alsup stated that under Barker v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
