Search for: "John Doe Defendants 1-25"
Results 981 - 995
of 995
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2007, 12:23 am
Criminal Sanction Impact.01/08/07 REFERRED TO CODES01/30/07 1ST REPORT CAL.5901/31/07 2ND REPORT CAL.LAW / CORRECTNSS1905
SAMPSON -- Authorizes certain inmates serving an indeterminate sentence to receive good time allowances of up to 1/3 of their minimum sentencesSUMM : Amd SS803 & 805, Cor L Authorizes inmates serving indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for offenses involving controlled substances and marihuana to receive good time allowances against the minimum terms of… [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 2:55 pm
University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 1-64, Fall 2004. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 4:02 pm
Does 1-25 before Judge Swain, Motown v. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 9:53 am
John F. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 4:01 pm
" In that light, ten questions for the (Rump) Group of 88: 1.) [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 8:26 pm
JOHN DOE, Defendant.Case Number: O-2004-1175COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA2006 OK CR 1; 127 P.3d 1135; 2006 Okla. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 1:14 pm
Gabe Keri, a 25-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Najam writes:Suzanne Swinehart and Virginia Hartman bring this interlocutory appeal following the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment. [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 11:31 am
Balkin, DOJ Memo Defends Cheney Shooting (Feb. 14, 2006)21. [read post]
16 Dec 2006, 5:46 am
ESTTo be televised by ESPNAppalachian State Mountaineers (1, defending champions) v. [read post]
16 Nov 2006, 6:43 am
But Garton and Long defended the program in a testy Statehouse news conference. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 10:44 pm
My comments appear in blue below each of Derenne's 10 statements.1. [read post]
30 Oct 2006, 9:10 pm
Here’s two things you need to know about software patent lawsuits: 1) they only exist when the defendant has money, and 2) software patents and open source are not incompatible just because RedHat (or anyone else) says that they are. [read post]
14 Aug 2006, 11:06 am
He further wrote that as argued by the General Counsel, "the Board has found that a striker's use of the most vile and vulgar language, including racial epithets, does not deprive him of the protection of the Act, so long as those actions do not constitute a threat. [read post]
4 Aug 2006, 4:25 pm
Law Judge John T. [read post]
31 Dec 1969, 4:00 pm
Results 1. [read post]
