Search for: "Ford v State"
Results 1121 - 1140
of 2,482
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm
Nor had the Supreme Court yet ruled in United State v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 1:30 pm
§ 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 12:44 pm
News of the massive airbag recall is making waves across the automotive industry this week as new estimates suggest that over 7.8 million vehicles are potentially affected in the United States alone. [read post]
24 Oct 2014, 9:11 am
United States, 14-5227, and Freidus v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:57 am
United States, 14-29, involving a prosecution under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, or the ’34 Act, as we old-timers call it (rescheduled for this Friday’s Conference); and Crews v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:10 am
§ 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 7:44 am
Ford Motor Co., 281 N.C. 496, 501, 189 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1972)). [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 4:45 pm
§ 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his "opportunity to be heard," contrary to Atkins and Ford v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am
§ 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 7:17 pm
§ 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 7:15 am
She wrote: [C]onsider the importance of the 1980 Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 12:52 am
Cranford Community College v Cranford College Ltd [2014] EWHC 2999 (IPEC), decided by Judge Richard Hacon on 19 September, is another in the line of swift, simple decisions of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, England and Wales, which demonstrate the virtues of that humble tribunal.Cranford Community College (originally Cranford Community School) had since 1975 been a state secondary school. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 5:50 am
Finally, Juror B's email states that the only other juror who began deliberations not already inclined to convict Roy was the juror who failed to show up on Monday and who was replaced by the alternate. . . .U.S. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2014, 1:29 pm
Slight revision to the Ford v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 4:31 am
"Driving under such conditions reflects a voluntary act by Edmonds and a willingness to incur risk outside the scope of his employment," Carlton opined.Judge Carlton apparently dismisses any idea that Edmonds might just be stupid, which is not grounds for denying workers' compensation compensability.Linde Gas v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 8:05 am
United States, No. 12-597C (February 14, 2013). [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 4:54 pm
In analyzing whether the plaintiff is entitled to the information it seeks, the starting point of inquiry is CPL 720.35(2) which provides: Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justice services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to… [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 6:08 am
Corp. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 9:02 am
A particularly notable point mentioned that, before Ford v. [read post]
