Search for: "STATE v COUNTS"
Results 9701 - 9720
of 17,261
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2013, 8:36 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2013, 7:19 am
If Java apps don't run on Android, they have the chutzpah to call this state of affairs "interoperability". [read post]
31 May 2013, 1:47 pm
For more on Dockery v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 6:59 am
The United States Constitution’s infamous “Three-Fifths Clause” dictated that for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives African-American slaves were to be counted as less than full persons. [read post]
31 May 2013, 6:02 am
State v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 2:47 pm
Underwood, who hails from the Sooner State, said about her donation: I have watched the devastation in my home state of Oklahoma over the past several days with great sadness. [read post]
30 May 2013, 9:13 am
Since the United States Supreme Court first addressed the patentability of computer software in Gottschalk v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:02 pm
Supreme Court Center.McQuiggin v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 2:48 pm
Accolade, Sony v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 9:01 am
United States v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 3:30 am
Supreme Court in a pending case, U.S. v Davila, which addresses the limits on judicial involvement in plea discussions. [read post]
27 May 2013, 6:00 am
This is true in most states, including Florida. [read post]
27 May 2013, 5:42 am
AFL Telecommunications LLC v. [read post]
25 May 2013, 2:43 pm
Counsel responded that it did not pursuant to Elementary School District No. 159 v. [read post]
24 May 2013, 10:28 am
See Devicor Medical Products, Inc. v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:12 pm
The case of Douglas v. [read post]
22 May 2013, 6:25 pm
On all counts. [read post]
22 May 2013, 5:19 pm
The standard for showing ineffective assistance of counsel rising to a level that violates a defendant’s constitutional rights to such a degree that would require a defendant to obtain a new trial is set forth in the 1984 United States Supreme Court decision of Strickland v. [read post]
22 May 2013, 1:25 pm
Reeps v. [read post]
22 May 2013, 6:00 am
That law requires the executive branch, and ultimately the courts, to ask whether an authorization to use force that may not mention detention explicitly nonetheless authorizes it implicitly–and thus counts as sufficient statutory authority to satisfy the Non-Detention Act. [read post]
