Search for: "Stephens v. State Bar" Results 1161 - 1180 of 1,674
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2014, 12:12 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Records reveal that in the first case, an indictment was found for the crime of robbery alleged to have been committed on July 16, 1953, at a Bar and Grill. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 5:42 am by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
State Bar of Arizona upheld a challenge by Arizona lawyers, John Bates (anyone watch Downtown Abbey?) [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 4:43 am by Anita Davies
It is a situation about which the entire legal profession, and not just the Bar, should be deeply concerned. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 7:25 am by Dan Bressler
” “For calls in which the recorder is abiding by state law, the American Bar Association has taken the stance that it is not unethical for a lawyer to record calls with those who have not consented, as long as the lawyer does not falsely state or imply that the call is not being recorded, according to Gillers. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 5:18 pm by Stephen Bilkis
It is respectively held that the holding of the Appellate Division of the Second Department, in the matter of Ricapito v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 12:47 pm by Amy Howe
When the justices took the bench this morning to hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 6:49 am by Marcia Coyle
” Justice Scalia gave as an example the court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 1:48 pm by Stephen Bilkis
With us, we make sure that perpetrators of this crime go behind bars. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
United States On 22 January 2019 the US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up an appeal in Hassell v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am by John Elwood
It was wham, bam, thank you Supreme Court of the United States for American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 2:46 am by Kelly
XX v HMRC (IP finance) United States US Patents  ‘Sub-standard’ patents cost the US economy over $25 billion a year. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
The Court enforced the constitutional text as written, interpreting the formally unamendable rule entrenching a single-term limit as definitively barring any extension of the presidential term. [read post]