Search for: "Commonwealth v. Stills, M."
Results 81 - 100
of 232
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2023, 10:23 am
Justice Thomas is the only Katz dissenter still on the Court. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 8:23 am
Although that federal case is still pending, the Florida Court of Appeals (Second District) has handed down a new decision, State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 5:00 am
Section 8371.The Supreme Court adopted the two-part test enunciated in the case of Terletsky v. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:30 am
The two scenarios which we run into the most seem to be (1) the Goldilocks Scenario and (2) the Intoxicated Idiot. 1) The Goldilocks Scenario: We get this every so often and I'm still surprised by it. [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 4:47 am
When I practiced criminal law in Pennsylvania, there was a very famous pro-defendant suppression case called Commonwealth v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:11 pm
Arneson, 766 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2014); Commonwealth v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am
I therefore thought I'd blog the text of the draft brief here, and invite all of you to tell me why I'm wrong altogether, why I'm wrong on specific details, how the proposal could be improved, or even what parts of the proposal seem likely to be confusing to the judges. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 6:14 pm
In 2002, in the landmark decision Atkins v. [read post]
29 Aug 2015, 8:43 am
Carman v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 12:33 pm
Who’s responsible for that first draft, you may be asking, and since I looked it up, I’m going to tell you regardless. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 11:52 am
CIV-12-630-M, slip op. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 10:01 am
Laws 759; Commonwealth v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 12:27 am
Social conservatives will, in the wake of Commonwealth v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 10:30 pm
Lasch, Beth Lyon, M. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 12:56 pm
Are those still considered valid? [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 10:07 pm
DAVID M. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 5:01 am
Balikian & Cody M. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 5:14 pm
Commonwealth, 742 S.E.2d 407 (Va. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 4:28 pm
Justice Brewer’s 1892 decision is still studied for the “familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 12:55 pm
by Dennis Crouch In Vanda v. [read post]
