Search for: "Cochrane v. United States"
Results 81 - 100
of 112
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2010, 3:03 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. (09 Civ. 4515). [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 8:43 pm
State . [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 3:39 am
See United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 10:08 am
Well, um, in Miles v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:39 pm
However, on closer inspection, the jury charge issue the CCA addressed in this most recent (and published) Hood case is actually something they've been wrestling with since 2007.In 2007, the United States Supreme Court decided Abdul-Kabir v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 7:57 am
Such questions about jury instructions are an area of legal dispute that has bounced from state courts to the United States Supreme Court and back over the past 20 years. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 10:09 am
However, I do think it's kind of ironic that Judge Cochran starts off with quotes from the dissenting opinion from Abdul-Kabir v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 9:16 am
From Judge Cochran's majority opinion:This is all very awkward. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 2:35 pm
Cochran, 377 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir. 2004) (same); Barnhart v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 7:33 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
On appeal the Eighth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 8:25 am
The CCA ruling is here; the dissent by Judge Cochran, joined by Judges Price and Holcomb, here. [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 5:22 am
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
6 Jun 2009, 9:07 pm
Chakrabarty, supra, at 308, quoting United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
United States, 880 F.2d 84, 86-87 (8th Cir. 1989).Kansas: Savina v. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 6:24 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
(following Mendez) with United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 3:55 am
They provide a lot of insight into the workings over at the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 10:04 pm
Hernan Arquimides Ramos v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Haviland, No. 07-3380 Grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner sought to represent himself at trial, and the trial court's failure to rule on his requests to proceed pro se deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; and 2) state courts' objectiv [read post]
