Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 9341 - 9360
of 16,710
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm
American AtheistsDocket: 10-1276Issue(s): (1) Which Establishment Clause test should be applied when analyzing passive public displays; (2) does the Establishment Clause forbid roadside memorial crosses marking the site of death for state highway troopers killed in the line of duty; and (3) is a collection of memorials owned by a private organization, disclaimed by the state, and located on both private and public property properly classified as government speech? [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 9:54 am
–State v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 6:39 am
Montgomery v. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 3:19 am
Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 4:31 am
Often, [however,] the decision to not cross-examine a witness is the result of wisdom acquired by experience in the combat of trial. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 9:27 am
” Here, the court’s determination to deny defendant’s request for attorney’s fees was largely based on its assessment of defendant’s credibility at trial regarding the state of her own finances, her failure to fully account for large sums of money that she had received, and her failure to fully account for assets belonging to plaintiff that she purportedly used for his benefit during the period they were separated. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 2:49 am
The court should have limited its ruling in the first order on appeal to granting plaintiff's cross motion for an extension of time to effect service pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Lippett v Education Alliance, 14 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]). [read post]
9 Oct 2023, 1:52 pm
Roman v. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 5:21 am
See United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 6:08 am
Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 WLR 377 and English v. [read post]
22 Jan 2010, 6:09 am
During oral argument in Berghuis v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 6:08 am
Halifax Estate Agencies [2000] 1 WLR 377 and English v. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 3:42 am
That entry is cross-referenced with the definition of “embezzlement,” which is “[t]he fraudulent taking of personal property with which one has been entrusted, esp[ecially] as a fiduciary” (Black’s Law Dictionary [9th ed 2009], embezzlement [emphasis added]). [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 5:55 pm
Galerie Enrico Navarra v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 6:00 am
Below is my column in the Hill on the trial of Depp v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:28 pm
Sporrong [Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35] itself) that the presence or absence of compensation is not a separate issue, but is an important element in deciding whether, in authorising the interference in the general interest, the balance struck by the state is fair. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:28 pm
Sporrong [Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 EHRR 35] itself) that the presence or absence of compensation is not a separate issue, but is an important element in deciding whether, in authorising the interference in the general interest, the balance struck by the state is fair. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 11:09 am
Co. v Utica First Ins. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 3:00 am
The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the ITCA has no extraterritorial applicability. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:04 pm
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 663 F.3d 1124, 1135 (10th Cir. 2011). [read post]
