Search for: "Robert Dively v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 122
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2008, 5:59 pm
New York State Penal Law Section 170.25, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, establishes that if a person possesses a forged instrument, with knowledge it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure another, that person may be guilty of this crime if he or she possesses a forged instrument of a kind specified in New York State Penal Law Section 170.10, Forgery in the Second Degree. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by SOG Staff
  Have you read the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by SOG Staff
  Have you read the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
 ICWA, among other things, allows tribes to intervene in state adoptions of tribal children. [read post]
10 Oct 2024, 6:31 pm
Introduction   Fear has returned to the constitutional state.[1]  Or rather, a state of dread for the constitutional state, one “forced to it,- forced by dread causes. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 4:40 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on Monday’s decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:34 pm by centerforartlaw
The second part of the series took place on November 21; it dived into the nuts and bolts of setting up a trust. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 2:00 pm by SCOTUStalk
The Chief Justice John Roberts, was not on the Supreme Court then. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 6:38 am by Mark Ashton
” Ironically, much of this was reviewed by the Virginia case of Jessee v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:36 am
Past practice says no, but the Roberts Court has signaled a willingness to render decisions that have by most measures changed long-standing precedents in American constitutional law (I'm thinking of the decisions in Citizens United v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 7:36 am
Past practice says no, but the Roberts Court has signaled a willingness to render decisions that have by most measures changed long-standing precedents in American constitutional law (I'm thinking of the decisions in Citizens United v. [read post]