Search for: "STATE v. HENNINGS"
Results 1061 - 1080
of 1,597
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2012, 10:56 am
I know you do.'In response to questions about the adequacy of the appellate record, and whether the recorded proceedings (which, as stated, had been provided to Appellant by the trial court) had been transcribed, Appellant stated: 'I don't need to give you the universe of evidence in these proceedings. . . . [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 4:24 pm
Trades Council v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 6:28 am
Furthermore, in Batson v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 6:28 am
Furthermore, in Batson v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 10:53 am
Moore v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 6:32 am
’ United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2012, 5:31 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 10:47 am
Rasul v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 6:05 am
See State v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 10:00 am
It is true that “[W]hen a statute is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, by one of which it is unconstitutional and by the other valid, the court prefers the meaning that preserves to the meaning that destroys” (Panama Refining Co. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 2:34 am
" News like this can't help but raise thoughts of the 1976 decision, Tarasoff v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 9:12 pm
In Frank v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 6:27 am
See Pascale v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 6:27 am
See Pascale v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 12:43 pm
Yet, in US v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 12:43 pm
Yet, in US v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:36 am
A few days ago we read Juris v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:45 am
Citing Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, the Circuit Court explained that "[W]hen public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Coito v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 3:54 pm
Battley v. [read post]