Search for: "THE STATE v. FOLSOM" Results 121 - 140 of 184
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 May 2010, 10:54 am by Aaron Barkoff
  Among these is the decision from Judge Folsom in Parallel Networks, LLC v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 3:32 pm by Joe Mullin
  “They are the patent examiners....They are paid by the United States of America. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 8:46 am by Randall Hodgkinson
State, No. 101,078 (Shawnee)State appeal (transfer)Jean K. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 2:27 pm by Ken
Certainly she doesn’t seem bright enough to be familiar with Hustler v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
(Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Sanctions ruling from Chief Judge Folsom - $100,000 for failure to timely disclose a crucial document: ESN, LLC v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
(Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Sanctions ruling from Chief Judge Folsom - $100,000 for failure to timely disclose a crucial document: ESN, LLC v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 7:49 am by Randall Hodgkinson
I also fondly remember Carl's win in State v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 10:57 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Ruby Thomas, No. 98,123 (Geary)Direct appeal (petition for review); PossessionCarl Folsom, IIIFailure to suppress evidenceStatutory speedy trial violationConfrontation Clause (Laturner)State v. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 8:22 am
Both grew slowly over the next century, with a new prison at Folsom opened in 1880, and a southern branch of the University of California opened in Los Angeles in 1914. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 9:21 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Harold Spencer, No. 101,077 (Shawnee)State appealCarl Folsom, III 1. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:09 am
Kristie Urban, No. 98,856 (Johnson)State appeal (petition for review)Janine CoxSufficiency of evidence for agg escape from custody chargeState v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 7:06 am
Several months later somebody downloaded the photo and put the word "Socialism" on the photo and started plastering posters of the modified photo throughout Los Angeles.Whether or not you agree with the message that it conveys, it appears that the photo modification is protected under the famous 1841 Folsom v. [read post]