Search for: "State v. Correll"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,334
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2022, 4:00 am
Specifically, in the recent case of Worsoff v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 3:19 pm
In Ohio v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 7:00 am
United States (Redux). [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 8:33 am
The digest of the bill states: Jury study. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 7:45 am
In Jones v. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 10:00 am
In Wisconsin v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 5:11 am
., v. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 4:00 pm
See also Holt v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 1:46 pm
The second began in 2005, when the Supreme Court overturned the de novo standard on constitutional grounds in United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 11:51 am
In an 1838 case, Buddington v. [read post]
29 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
Circuit ruling in Taylor v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 8:13 pm
White and Oncale v. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:20 pm
This correlation is not coincidental; expanding energy use is foundational to modernity. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:28 pm
In Hill v. [read post]
18 Dec 2024, 10:37 am
Supreme Court‘s dismissal of a writ of certiorari in late November in Facebook Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 9:11 am
In short, it should be possible—and this is the only reason someone other than a descriptive linguist would be interested in corpus linguistics at all-- to map formal differences onto content differences, to correlate features of a text described independently of any interpretive hypothesis with a particular interpretation.It isn’t possible and it never will be.What this means is that while Thomas Lee and James Phillips’s paper might be interesting for several… [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 9:11 am
In short, it should be possible—and this is the only reason someone other than a descriptive linguist would be interested in corpus linguistics at all-- to map formal differences onto content differences, to correlate features of a text described independently of any interpretive hypothesis with a particular interpretation.It isn’t possible and it never will be.What this means is that while Thomas Lee and James Phillips’s paper might be interesting for several… [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 8:31 am
Aftermath of Brane v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 5:47 am
From Gregory v. [read post]
2 Sep 2017, 5:33 pm
For example, Harding observes critically a tradition where important concepts in science, such as objectivity v. subjectivity, reason v. emotion, and mind v. body, were considered to have a gendered quality; with the former being masculine and the latter being feminine.[10] Similarly, I ask critically here if the distinction I’ve drawn between “tools” and “cyberspace” is susceptible to the same assumptions. [read post]
