Search for: "State v. Crosby"
Results 81 - 100
of 237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2017, 10:12 am
Lebowitz asks the court to impose the remedy that was proposed on Monday under United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 4:14 am
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (citing Ackermann v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 5:05 am
Crosby, 75 F.3d 1343, 1347 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. [read post]
10 Nov 2007, 9:52 pm
Crosby, 451 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2006). [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 9:43 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 8:57 pm
P 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 1:04 pm
Google, Doe v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 12:35 pm
” Crosby, 530 U.S. at 380. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 8:33 pm
I recently posted on Florida’s efforts to do the same thing and expressed considerable doubt that Florida’s statute could survive judicial review based on the Supreme Court decision in Crosby v. [read post]
25 Sep 2006, 10:21 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 10:00 pm
The closer an employee is to the functioning of state power, the further the due process entitlements of the Convention are from his grasp: see the detailed attention given to this matter by Nicol J in Crosbie v Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWHC 879 (our post here). [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 12:00 am
Supreme Court ruled in Crosby v. [read post]
18 Feb 2007, 7:20 am
State v. [read post]
19 Jan 2008, 7:22 am
Charlie Crist chose the state's juvenile justice chief, Walt McNeil, as the new state Corrections Department leader. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 7:09 pm
The court draws a contrast between the Florida law and the law found to be preempted in Crosby v. [read post]
27 Aug 2008, 12:30 pm
Crosby, 2008 U.S. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 1:29 pm
Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996); and State v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 1:29 pm
Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996); and State v. [read post]
3 May 2009, 11:16 am
Co. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 8:05 am
Unfortunately not.The Court of Appeal's decision in Crosbie v Munroe [2003] EWCA Civ 350 makes it clear that a Part 47.19 offer does not include the costs of the detailed assessment proceedings (ie the work relating to negotiations and assessment of the costs of the substantive claim). [read post]
