Search for: "Law v. Cross" Results 101 - 120 of 14,834
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2023, 7:58 am by Unreported Opinions
Criminal lawCross-examination — Sufficiency of evidence A jury, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, convicted Derrick Wills, appellant, of one count of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, one count of home invasion, two counts of use of a firearm in […] The post DERRICK TIMOTHY WILLS v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 7:24 am
Cross-undertakings in support of interim injunctive relief are an increasingly important, and frightening, part of intellectual property law. [read post]
15 Nov 2007, 10:04 am
In all three instances the court properly cited Wade v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:36 am by familoo
But the Court of Appeal were also surprisingly dismissive of arguments made in Q v Q : Re B : Re C (Private Law : Public Funding) [2015] 1 FLR 324 and other cases that a fair trial would be compromised without legal representation of an accused – they thought that q [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 4:52 am by Lawrence Solum
Humanitarian Law Project and the Potential to Cripple Humanitarian Assistance in Armed Conflict on SSRN. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 7:34 am by Joel Cockerell
Further, it was argued there was no rule of law that the crossing rule would not apply where a vessel was emerging from a narrow channel and another vessel was crossing so as to enter that channel. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 3:11 pm by Harold O'Grady
The Brooklyn Law School Library collection has many of these titles that aspiring trial lawyers can review before starting the practice of law. [read post]
29 May 2019, 7:12 am by Geoffrey Paschke
The case raises the question of whether a plaintiff who plausibly alleges that a federal law enforcement officer violated Fourth and Fifth amendment rights while serving within the official scope of employment can sue for damages under Bivens v. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 1:52 am
Regina (Al-Sweady and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) Queen’s Bench Divisional Court “Full disclosure was required in any judicial review proceedings involving disputed questions of fact so that effective and proper cross-examination of the makers of witness statements on those questions could take place. [read post]