Search for: "IN RE C V DAVIS MINOR" Results 61 - 78 of 78
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2011, 1:55 pm by Aaron Pelley
Allen had been or was still being investigated for sexual misconduct with minors, [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm by Bexis
  Real violation claims aren’t particularly easy to plead, but they’re even harder to prove, so this is just the beginning. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 10:27 am by WSLL
Davis, JudgeRepresenting Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 11:00 am
Skelos, et al., Respondents, vDavid Paterson, & c., et al., Appellants. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Whorley, No. 06-4288 Convictions for receipt of obscene cartoons depicting minors, receipt of actual child pornography, and receipt of obscene e-mails are unsuccessfully challenged on First Amendment grounds. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
Whitley, No. 06-0131 In a criminal law matter, petition for review of decision denying rehearing is denied where the court declined to depart from the literal wording of the "except" clause of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A). . [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 8:50 am
(Laura Empson of Cass Business School gave a particularly nice presentation on this at lunchtime Thursday, positing that useful ways of thinking about partnership might be as analogous to The Three Musketeers, to Henry V's famous "band of brothers" speech before the Battle of Agincourt, to a buccaneer pirate ship, or, at last, to "Gone With the Wind. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Schlesinger, No. 05-3021 Conviction on a variety of arson and fraud charges is affirmed over claim that 28 U.S.C. section 2461(c)(2005) did not authorize the criminal forfeiture of the proceeds of his mail and wire fraud offenses. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 11:50 pm
In attendance were Mark Gruber, Peter Cannon and DaphneGaylord, Capital Collateral Re~ional Counsel for the Defendant, Ken Nunnelley andBarbara Davis, Office ofthe Attorney General and Wayne Holmes, Office of the StateAttorney. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 10:14 pm
NLRB, 39 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994), in which the court reversed the Board's finding of violation and found that arguably similar remarks were protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 3:28 am
Minor, what you're saying can't possibly be true. [read post]