Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 16,690
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2016, 9:09 am
In Mathis v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 1:26 pm
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 11:53 am
This is reaffirmed by B.A.F. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 10:02 am
By Eric Goldman In the 1992 case Quill v. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 6:00 am
United States (06-571) and Stoneridge v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:26 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:26 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:09 am
John Echohawk, Jaqueline Pata, and Terry Cross have a scathing op-ed on Politico here. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 6:45 am
In Trinity Lutheran Church v. [read post]
10 May 2009, 2:00 pm
United States, No. 08-1270, and the pro se IFP cert petition in Brown v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 5:27 am
United States v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 9:01 pm
By contrast, if police took a statement in violation of Miranda, the statement would be inadmissible in the government’s affirmative case but admissible on cross-examination of the defendant, under Harris v. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 2:14 pm
It's been a full weekend at Casa CAAFlog, leaving me with insufficient time to offer a thorough analysis of United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 3:05 pm
United States: Whether a federal circuit court may sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence in the absence of a cross-appeal by the government. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
Raich v. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 6:46 am
The state court’s conclusion that cross‐examination of the state’s main witness’ motive for testifying was a collateral matter was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 6:51 pm
EPA, EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update was back before the Court following a remand and revision. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 8:09 pm
(2) I also discuss the concurrence in Bush v. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 1:48 pm
Thus, not only would proponents of liberal constitutional change need to secure ratification from all states where she crossed the 40% mark – a group including states such as Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas – they also would have to pick up five states that voted more than three-to-two against Senator Clinton. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 10:04 am
(Cross-posted at Opinio Juris blog) [read post]
