Search for: "United States v. Barker"
Results 61 - 80
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2016, 5:30 pm
Meanwhile, modern precedents such as the Court’s 1971 decision in United States v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:55 pm
The constitutional standard for a speedy trial was established by the United States Supreme Court in a case called Barker v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 11:47 am
Barker , 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 7:49 am
Judge Marcus wrote that the Court was bound by United States v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 2:26 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 9:00 pm
The United States Supreme Court ordinarily rejects criminal cases for review absent a material split of opinions in the state appellate courts, federal appellate courts, or both, unless the Court finds a compelling Constitutional question to justify review nonetheless. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 12:52 pm
In United States v.Velazquez, No 12-3992 (3d. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 7:00 am
In Smith v. the United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 1:16 pm
In Smith v. the United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 10:32 am
The Court applied the analytical framework as articulated in Barker v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 12:04 pm
Degelmann, 29 F.3d 295, 300-01 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 11:24 am
Co. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 3:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 1:51 am
Fellow Kat Darren, together with his EIP colleague Robert Barker, write up the Idenix v Gilead litigation over whether a document cited as prior art in a patent validity dispute over novelty is entitled to its priority date, on the jiplp weblog here. [read post]
24 Aug 2014, 12:30 am
"The Los Angeles Review of Books reviews Clark Stoeckley's The United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2007, 3:40 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:09 pm
See Barker v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 6:20 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 1:12 pm
The justices have agreed to decide the following issue: “Whether district courts, in determining whether the due process clause requires a state or local government to provide a post-seizure probable-cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial-forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850 and Barker v. [read post]
