Search for: "Commonwealth v. Major"
Results 861 - 880
of 951
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2009, 1:19 pm
In the recent case of Zeidman v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 4:07 am
Back in January, we put up a short post noting the filing of a petition for extraordinary ("King's Bench") review in the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 1:00 pm
Both majority and minority approached the constitutional question by reference to the English historical background, in light of the 19th century statutory reforms, which took a very different form in the United States than in England (and elsewhere in the Commonwealth). [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 3:00 am
Fiser v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 3:28 pm
In the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 5:00 pm
J.D. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 12:47 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 1:49 am
In a 105-page opinion in Naz Foundation v. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 2:50 am
"It is particularly disappointing that the majority failed to appreciate that its ruling today will significantly burden our ability to prosecute countless drug cases in the Commonwealth's courts," she said. [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 8:01 am
Kline remains the law of the Commonwealth even though the statute books still contain 23 Pa. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 10:34 am
Unfortunately for Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had already squarely addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 3:53 am
Thanks to John Wesley Hall at the Law of Criminal Defense blog for this post directing attention to Commonwealth v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 2:30 am
"In United States v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 5:31 pm
Sexton v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 7:53 pm
In Massachusetts v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 5:48 pm
(Loveless v. [read post]
11 May 2009, 1:32 pm
Mushroom Co. v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 4:21 am
" In Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 6:46 am
Commonwealth (1869) disagreed, only six years after the NBA’s passage, that there were the state hostility problems of the kind that appeared in McCulloch v. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 6:15 am
Three justices (you need four for an outright majority) agreed in a concurring opinion in Phillips v. [read post]
