Search for: "State v. Davis" Results 1081 - 1100 of 6,201
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2020, 7:45 am by Kalvis Golde
Briefly: At The Oklahoman (via How Appealing), Chris Casteel reports that in a brief filed last week in McGirt v. [read post]
7 Feb 2020, 3:45 am by Tim James-Matthews
The decision of the Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal ([2019] EWCA Civ 809: Underhill, Davis and Davies LLJ) determined that the applicable standard of proof of death by suicide in inquest proceedings is the civil standard of proof (at [74]), and that this standard should be applied to both short-form and narrative conclusions (at §[73]). [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 11:07 am by Andrew Hamm
Davis, when it is plausible that the failure to investigate that aspect of petitioner’s background on state postconviction review could, given substantial authority recognizing counsel’s duty to do so, excuse the procedural default of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
Rob Davies, a Guardian journalist was denied a press pass for a major gambling industry exhibition. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 2:55 pm by Giles Peaker
Davies v Scott, 24 October 2019,  Mayors & City County Court . [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 2:55 pm by Giles Peaker
Davies v Scott, 24 October 2019,  Mayors & City County Court . [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 5:14 am by Charles Sartain
This decision is only the second application by a state supreme court of the rule of capture to hydraulic fracturing (from Texas, Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 1:30 pm by Karen Gullo
”For the decision:https://www.eff.org/document/woodhull-appeals-court-rulingFor more on this case:https://www.eff.org/cases/woodhull-freedom-foundation-et-al-v-united-states Contact:  AaronMackeyStaff Attorneyamackey@eff.org [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
Davis and capital resentencing case McKinney v. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
Civil Rights Law section 65 was amended to provide that any person may elect to resume the use of a former middle name upon divorce or annulment and that the state shall not impose a fee to change the middle name on a state identifying document due to a change in marital status. [read post]