Search for: "California v. Johnson" Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,649
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2008, 9:30 pm
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway is reviewing the state's 38 death row cases, including the two that initiated the Supreme Court challenge in Baze v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm by Hilary Hurd
The case of President Andrew Johnson, our first impeached president, dealt principally with Johnson’s decision to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. [read post]
28 May 2014, 3:56 pm by Gustavo Arballo
Como abogado, Marshall llevó a la Corte 33 casos con una impresionante eficacia (ganó 30, un récord notable teniendo en cuenta que conforme los precedentes llevaba las de perder en la mayoría) y luego integraría el Tribunal por designación de Lyndon Johnson desde 1967 a 1991. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am by John Elwood
United States, 15-8544, both ask essentially: (1) whether Johnson v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:43 am by John Elwood
California Franchise Tax Board, 15-1442 (addressing the Multistate Tax Compact); Haugen v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:07 am by Marie Louise
Johnson & Johnson [2010] EWCA Civ 1039 (IPKat) (EPLAW) Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 3:41 pm
I Injunction available after claimed licence fees paid - PPL v JJPB I Trademark application for the devil's horn withdrawn I Jo Johnson to continue as IP Minister I UPC Order on Privileges & Immunities placed before Parliament today I Celebrate 120 years of AIPPI in Sydney I Event invitation - The Pirate Bay communicates to the public: are there any more online infringement questions to be answered? [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 6:51 am by Nabiha Syed
And at this blog, Kevin Johnson reports on last week’s oral arguments in Vartelas v. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 11:45 pm by Aaron
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/826650.opn.pdf In her dissent, Chief Justice Madsen, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, James Johnson, and Fairhurst, argued that the majority treats the “routine process” used for excusing several potential jurors as a critical stage of the trial. [read post]