Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 9181 - 9200
of 16,710
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Dec 2010, 4:57 pm
Dillinger, 445 SW 2d 410 (Mo Ct Appeals 1969) State v. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 3:35 am
” At the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Sorenen looks at last week’s cert grant in McKinney v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am
Farina 13-1227Issue: Whether a habeas court may evade the highly deferential standard of review in the habeas statute by characterizing its legal and policy differences with the state court as unreasonable factual determinations and grant the writ on the basis of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel when the state court held that the cross-examination of the mitigation witness was not fundamental error under state law. [read post]
12 Sep 2021, 3:10 am
On this third point, Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) provided an explanation as to the German injunction gap and the interaction with UK patent proceedings at [14]-[19] of his decision, summarizing previous decisions (HTC v Apple, ZTE, v Ericsson, Garmin v Phillips) where Mr Justice Arnold (as he then was) consistently expressed the view that the presence of a possible German injunction gap "was a factor to take into account". [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 11:32 am
Backpage; Florida Abolitionists v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:43 am
Update | Thomas v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 9:26 pm
Even though Cohen v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 7:57 am
Additional Resources: Spence v. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 11:54 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 11:54 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 6:58 am
That case was Harding v. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 4:41 am
State v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 3:16 pm
Cos. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:02 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 6:02 pm
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit, Polonsky v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 7:45 am
The court found that the relevant inquiry was whether the technique he used was sound, not whether his patients were comfortable with it (Riano v. [read post]
Volunteers Alleging Employment Status Lose Title VII Case, but Court Applies Vigorous Analysis First
17 Dec 2014, 12:29 pm
Sister Michael Marie, et al. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 11:16 am
In his written opinion, the judge noted he relied more heavily on the accountant's cross-examination, stating that "a more accurate and credible amount would be $130,000, as established by Plaintiff's attorney during cross examination of the expert. [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 5:06 am
"4 Although not explicitly stated, this would appear to apply to other types of filing mistakes, such as filing of the initial papers in the wrong office, as was the case in Matter of Mendon Ponds Neighborhood Assn. v. [read post]
