Search for: "State v. Code"
Results 9341 - 9360
of 27,233
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2010, 2:25 pm
State, the 11th District Court of Appeals (Eastland) points out that under Section 62.201 of the Texas Government Code, parties in a district court may "agree to try a particular case with fewer than 12 jurors. [read post]
5 Jul 2021, 4:31 pm
City of Austin v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 6:53 pm
" Reilly v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 10:00 pm
See Fontani v. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 11:17 am
On Tuesday, December 5, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gonzales v. [read post]
17 Jul 2021, 4:38 am
First, the principle contended for by the State seems inherently boundless. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 5:07 am
" In one of the cases that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule exercised for 4th Amendment violations (United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 8:33 am
" Adams v. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 11:12 am
Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) and Goldstein v. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 10:54 am
Code Ann. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 11:41 am
In Naranjo v. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 12:48 pm
State of Georgia (1972). [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 8:41 am
Since 2016, sharing any ALPR data with out-of-state or federal law enforcement agencies is a violation of the California Civil Code (SB 34). [read post]
29 May 2020, 6:55 am
After more than three years of litigation and two rounds of extensive discovery, in Calendar Research LLC v. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 10:20 am
Code, § 11340 et seq) grounds. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 2:48 pm
Code, § 1200, subd. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 8:20 am
According to Skype, Joltid had supplied the source code rather than the object code. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 6:16 pm
Last April, in Farhy v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 1:22 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
NYPPL Comments: In New York State, unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement or by statute, typically only incompetence or misconduct related to job performance or off-duty misconduct adversely reflecting on the public employer [see, for example, Smith v Kerick, 292 A.D.2d 223 and Wilburn v McMahon, 296 A.D.2d 805] may serve as a lawful basis for an appointing authority initiating disciplinary action against a public officer or employee. [read post]
