Search for: "Goode v. State"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 44,656
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2009, 8:17 am
On December 19th, we wrote an article about a poorly decided California Supreme Court decision, Van Horn v. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 5:23 am
Good reasons exist for finding constitutionally problematic the state regulations at issue in Storman’s. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 2:24 pm
(United States v Desmond (1982) 670 Fed. 2nd 414, 420) The judgment is affirmed. [read post]
15 May 2023, 12:26 pm
The Supreme Court’s opinion last week in National Pork Producers Council v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 10:39 am
The district court disagreed, holding that ineffective assistance of state habeas counsel could never qualify as good cause to return to state court; it then dismissed the mixed § 2254 petition pursuant to Rose v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 9:00 pm
Sheng v State of N.Y. [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 5:00 am
In Loeza v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 7:36 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 8:00 am
Shep Melnick, is "The Administrative State in Action: Lessons from Title IX. [read post]
4 May 2007, 1:51 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2007, 7:33 am
Bush v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:24 am
York v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 2:30 pm
In December 2010, the Supreme Court faced a similar issue in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 2:30 pm
In December 2010, the Supreme Court faced a similar issue in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 9:17 am
” Nemeth v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:02 am
Although, I guess it's good to explain why Campbell's holding was distinguishable, so maybe that's why eight other judges joined this part of the opinion. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 11:30 pm
"A good therapist is less expensive than a good lawyer. [read post]
10 Apr 2025, 9:44 am
The COFC heard this case in Sunrez Corp. v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 11:56 pm
The post Case Comment: R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 49 appeared first on UKSC blog. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 1:00 pm
Hill v. [read post]