Search for: "Alexander v. U. S" Results 141 - 160 of 186
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2024, 3:52 pm by Reference Staff
For scholarly publications, Rule 10.7.1(d) adds a descriptive parenthetical note for citing cases where an enslaved person was involved, and provides examples like “Wall v. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 7:50 pm
Alexander, No. 071780 In a conviction for sale of controlled substance in or near school grounds, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed over claims that the state courts unreasonably applied Batson v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm by Bexis
”Then there’s the question of scope. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 11:55 pm
The Court will review such motions and may set them upon summary hearing or otherexpedited calendar.While considerably more vague than the Ripley County Rule, Allen County does cover the same territory.Both give a little bit more focus to the general outline created by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Alexander v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:36 am by INFORRM
The presence of a single conker in Charlie Brooks’s stash left some Twitter observers of the trial stumped. :: V – Volumes II and III of Lesbian Psychodrama. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 2:31 am by INFORRM
Vox and the BBC covered Twitter’s U-turn. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
Take the recent case of Tungsten Partners LLC v Ace Group International LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 32025(U) [Sup Ct NY County Sept. 20, 2017], in which Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich was called upon to decide whether the plaintiff holder of a 4% non-voting profits interest, identified as a “Management Member” in a 65-page operating agreement (plus another 170 pages of schedules and exhibits), was a member of the… [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 3:33 am by Peter Mahler
Take the recent case of Tungsten Partners LLC v Ace Group International LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 32025(U) [Sup Ct NY County Sept. 20, 2017], in which Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich was called upon to decide whether the plaintiff holder of a 4% non-voting profits interest, identified as a “Management Member” in a 65-page operating agreement (plus another 170 pages of schedules and exhibits), was a member of the… [read post]