Search for: "STATE v. SAMPLE"
Results 1041 - 1060
of 4,543
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2019, 6:30 am
Allen v. [read post]
27 May 2019, 8:51 pm
Link: HB 2758 House Bill 1399 – DNA Required Upon Arrest Signed – Effective September 1, 2019 House Bill 1399 makes the mandatory DNA sample post-arrest instead of post-indictment. [read post]
27 May 2019, 5:53 pm
When I first began my career as a state prosecutor, I had some of the most talented and gifted mentors available. [read post]
24 May 2019, 2:03 pm
For property crimes, there was no significant difference between the California cities in the sample and those in the rest of the country, a 5.1% drop for the former, and a 4.9% drop in the latter. [read post]
23 May 2019, 9:30 pm
Department of State and the U.S. [read post]
21 May 2019, 11:57 pm
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the United States has won the first round of litigation against Qualcomm. [read post]
20 May 2019, 1:25 pm
Facts: This case (Contreras et al v. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am
So the populations of case opinions that can be found in repositories such as Westlaw, Lexis, Casemaker, Justia, or Google Scholar, are not a representative sample of the universe of cases.And as for the precedent-setting cases in the state supreme court, they were and continue to be hand-picked because courts of last resort exercise discretionary review and their active docket (granted petitions are denominated "causes" in the SCOTX lingo) is anything but a random… [read post]
17 May 2019, 1:07 pm
Levay v. [read post]
15 May 2019, 12:56 pm
Circuit’s decision in United States v. [read post]
15 May 2019, 9:10 am
” Lone Star Promotions v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 11:24 am
Cir. 2014)(quoting Alza Corp. v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 12:30 pm
She litigated Lenahan v. [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:27 pm
That was one of the questions posed to a Utah jury in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 4:00 am
"In response to a demand for certain records involving the activities and conduct of correction officers, the Appellate Division said that its in camera review of a sampling of the requested documents in unredacted form "reveals that the factual description of events contained in the reports was 'neutral and did not contain any invidious implications capable facially of harassment or degradation of the officer in a courtroom'. [read post]
6 May 2019, 4:00 am
"In response to a demand for certain records involving the activities and conduct of correction officers, the Appellate Division said that its in camera review of a sampling of the requested documents in unredacted form "reveals that the factual description of events contained in the reports was 'neutral and did not contain any invidious implications capable facially of harassment or degradation of the officer in a courtroom'. [read post]
3 May 2019, 2:15 pm
State v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 8:56 am
The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Mitchell v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:05 am
In Pierce v. [read post]
