Search for: "State v. Michael A." Results 8141 - 8160 of 13,678
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2007, 7:41 am
Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 7:03 am by Anna Christensen
At Law.com, Tony Mauro and Carrie Levine report that the video game industry has been soliciting the support of state attorneys general in Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 3:42 pm
Frye that offers new insight on U.S. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 1:50 pm
At Reuters, James Vicini has this article on the decision, "a defeat for California officials"; David Stout reports here in the New York Times; McClatchy's Michael Doyle has this story discussing the ruling, which affirms passengers' constitutional rights to search-and-seizure protections; at Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr weighs in here on the Brendlin decision, stating "Justice Souter's opinion gets it right". [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 3:03 pm by Jack Vrett
Last month, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) heard oral arguments in the important case of Prosecutor v. [read post]
14 May 2023, 9:00 pm by Neil H. Buchanan and Michael C. Dorf
(That essay also explains the math that we used to derive the 40,100 percent interest rate stated above.)Our overall bottom line does not change, however, because the fundamental objection to all of the gimmicks has less to do with the exact interaction of the words of the key statutes than it does with a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation. [read post]
17 Apr 2020, 9:05 pm by Jamison Chung
  In Shelby County v. [read post]
2 Dec 2017, 1:39 pm by Wolfgang Demino
No matter what the number of the Trust, it makes no difference in litigation, except that the pleadings are different between the three law firms that have been prosecuting these cases in Texas: Regent and Associates (older cases), Michael J. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:05 am by Leila Nadya Sadat
In the most comprehensive iteration of the theory (which I dub version 3.0), Michael Newton argues that the ICC’s prescriptive and adjudicative jurisdiction is limited to whatever the State can transfer to it, meaning that a Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”) granting the United States jurisdiction over crimes committed by its troops in Afghanistan means that Afghanistan cannot “delegate” jurisdiction over U.S. nationals to the Court. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 3:41 am
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy J. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 3:41 am
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Timothy J. [read post]