Search for: "Hill v. State"
Results 1641 - 1660
of 5,189
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2012, 3:52 pm
In the Georgia case, which Cohen also covers, Warren Hill is facing the death penalty even though, as Cohen notes, a veteran Georgia state judge has said Hill is mentally disabled. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 1:25 pm
Vera and Shaw v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 12:15 pm
Hill; Cantrell v. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 6:38 am
On October 28th, Angel Raich–my client in Gonzales v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 9:30 pm
New from Hill & Wang: On Democracy's Doorstep: The Inside Story of How the Supreme Court Brought "One Person, One Vote" to the United States, by J. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 10:37 am
Beal Bank, SSB v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 10:00 am
With exquisite timing, the Court of Appeals lays it out for us.The case is United States v. [read post]
26 Nov 2006, 9:00 pm
Hill, 322 F. [read post]
20 Jan 2007, 11:13 pm
Judge Batts didn’t buy the argument, and made several findings (some competely incorrect ), including: XM is operating as a traditional radio broadcaster, but by broadcasting and storing music, XM was both a broadcasting and distributing, while only paying to broadcast (traditional radio pays no fees); and Comparing XM+MP3 players to a cassette recorders, she stated that it was “manifestly apparent that the use of a radio-cassette player to record songs played over free… [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 8:04 am
(Morningred v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 6:40 pm
In United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 9:28 am
United States, 985 F.2d 1574, 1582 (Fed. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 12:58 pm
Or so said the court in Hill v. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 6:07 pm
Barbara Williams v. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 6:07 pm
Barbara Williams v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 9:17 am
We have offices in Farmington Hills, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids and Sterling Heights to better serve you. [read post]
2 May 2011, 6:17 am
Responses to last week’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
28 May 2021, 2:20 pm
Hill 20-1587Issues: (1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation. [read post]
28 May 2021, 2:20 pm
Hill 20-1587Issues: (1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 9:20 pm
Supreme Court is not taking the appeal of Edwin Hardeman v. [read post]
