Search for: "Doe v. Massachusetts Trial Court"
Results 821 - 840
of 1,271
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
Massachusetts, 14-10078, who was convicted of possessing an operable stun gun in violation of a Massachusetts law, is asking the Court to address whether the Second Amendment includes stun guns in its definition of “arms. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 9:31 pm
* It appears this may not be complete: Alaska and Massachusetts also ban Election Day sales, although local governments are free to authorize exemptions. [read post]
15 May 2010, 10:42 pm
In a case called, Apprendi v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 4:41 pm
Doe v. [read post]
28 Apr 2025, 1:57 am
On Monday 14 April 2025 Collins Rice J found that there were “compelling reasons for further investigation at trial” when handing down judgment in Bridgen v Hancock [2025] EWHC 926 (KB). [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 3:04 pm
In this newest case, the trial judge, Albany County Supreme Court Justice Thomas J. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court’s ruling in Troxel v. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 1:59 pm
The Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1842 found that the purpose was not unlawful for it might aim at improving the condition of the workers. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 1:21 pm
While the court noted the importance of the convenience factors, it also recognized that "§ 1404(a) commits the balancing determination to the sound discretion of the trial court based not on per se rules but rather on an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Slip Op. at 6-7 (quoting Van Dusen v. [read post]
27 May 2020, 8:29 am
Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
A trial court in New Jersey, however, held, in a 1976 case, M.T. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
” The district court held that the FAAAA does not preempt section 148B(a)(2). [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 9:57 pm
By David RangavizState v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:12 pm
Massachusetts, and Bullcoming v. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 11:14 am
Unsatisfied with the insufficient corrective measures by the trial judge, the OSC sought an order by a reviewing Court to have the trial judge removed. [read post]
6 Jan 2025, 5:51 am
As best we can glean from the record, the trial court in Mr. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 12:23 pm
The Trial Court ruled that C.G. lacked standing. [read post]
17 Feb 2007, 12:56 pm
The trial court ordered Mr. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 7:02 am
The Court limited its review of the new case (Ashcroft v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
As to them, however, we adhere to our general rule that we don’t do the other side’s research for them.AlabamaThe Alabama Supreme Court held, in E.R. [read post]
