Search for: "State v. Laura M."
Results 141 - 160
of 389
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2016, 7:37 am
(Campbell v. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 12:15 pm
Nevertheless, I’m in two minds on this argument. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 9:23 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm
Laura Heymann: what would deception mean here? [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
Jakobsson, M. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 9:09 pm
Russia); In re Arctic Sunrise (Netherlands v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:24 pm
Whether the Courts will agree may be another matter, which may get addressed in judicial review of this decision and perhaps much sooner in the AC v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 4:00 am
Nice, Conjuring 'Equal Dignity': Mapping the Constitutional Dialogue to and from Same-Sex Marriage, (31 Civil Rights Litigation Handbook 373 (Steven Saltzman ed. 2015)).Laura M. [read post]
2 Jan 2016, 2:51 pm
As the balance of federal and state regulatory authority shifts, at what point is the “tradition” is upended? [read post]
6 Dec 2015, 6:25 am
Here are a few more of her greatest hits for those not hip to her work:Still Convicting the InnocentProsecutorial Exceptionalism: Remedial Skepticism, and the Legacy of Connick v. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 2:59 pm
I'm proud of you, Mary Sue, keep up the great work! [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 1:28 pm
’” “[M]ore derogatory Yaks were posted about ‘the feminists’ and Feminists United using insulting and offensive words, such as ‘I [f——] hate feminists and sour vaginas. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 4:03 am
State v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
”[v] Justice Anthony M. [read post]
26 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
Garcia v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 3:42 pm
Pedraza-Fariña states that patent law is the Federal Circuit's "perceived area of expertise" and she notes that non-patent areas are "characterized by high affirmance rates and deferential standards of review. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 12:54 am
Blank, The use of force against pirates Mark V. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 8:01 am
I’m aware of only a dozen or so federal courts that have local rules either stating that the defense doesn’t need to make a formal discovery motion, or requiring the government to disclose Brady/Giglio material within a specific time frame, without mentioning a defense motion. [read post]
21 May 2015, 4:43 am
That was on the basis of the House of Lords decision in Din v Wandsworth LBC and the Court of Appeal decision in Dyson v Kerrier DC. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:55 pm
Savage and Timothy M. [read post]
