Search for: "Majors v. Smith" Results 1241 - 1260 of 3,062
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 7:53 am by Alex Phipps
These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Smith: The justices must decide what happens when the government fabricates evidence. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 2:18 pm by Scott Bomboy
Smith is also repeating a similar argument from his initial briefs about Fitzgerald v. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 6:55 am by Law Lady
Child support -- Modification -- Administrative support order -- Trial court fundamentally erred when it reduced father's monthly child support obligations without notice or hearingDEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, o/b/o Loretta Sermon, Cherral Smith, and Yata Frichelle Canty, Appellant, v. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 10:35 am
These developments apparently have not yet affected a third case raising similar issues, but reaching the Court from a Texas state court, not the Fifth Circuit; that case, Smith v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 3:27 am by Russ Bensing
  Last spring, in Connick v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
Last September, broadcasters and amici supporters filed their briefs in the Second Circuit in WNET v Aereo. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
Last September, broadcasters and amici supporters filed their briefs in the Second Circuit in WNET v Aereo. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  The supporting Reporters’ Note to §4(b) confirms:The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions hold that compliance with product safety regulation is relevant and admissible on the question of defectiveness, but is not necessarily controlling.Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability §4, reporter’s notes to comment e (1998). [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am by Andrew Hamm
Smith 19-1106Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 10:06 am by Lyle Denniston
The Smith dissent thus provides a basis for more conservative judges on higher courts to decide differently than the panel majority did. [read post]