Search for: "King v. State"
Results 1641 - 1660
of 5,385
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2013, 8:00 am
King Construction Co. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 5:20 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MARK DEAN SCHWAB, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 8:07 am
King, supra. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 1:38 pm
But in Cardno ChemRisk v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 4:07 pm
Accordingly, the criminal court vacates the defendant's plea of guilty and remits the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings, including a hearing to determine whether an independent source exists to support an in-court identification of the defendant by the complainant akin to People v Gethers, People v Dodt, People v Sanchez and People v Dawkins. [read post]
12 May 2014, 8:00 am
In State v. [read post]
10 May 2013, 4:03 pm
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled en banc yesterday in Dean v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 4:07 am
Back in January, we put up a short post noting the filing of a petition for extraordinary ("King's Bench") review in the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 6:34 am
State v. [read post]
16 Dec 2024, 3:54 am
The recent New York Supreme Court, Kings County decision—Nunez v 678 St. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 8:49 am
Heiting v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 5:34 am
State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 1:49 am
"Where evidentiary material is submitted on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, it may be considered by the court, but unless the defendant demonstrates, without significant dispute, that a material fact alleged by the complaint is not a fact at all, the motion will not be granted" (Quesada v Global Land, Inc., 35 AD3d 575, 576; see Caravousanos v Kings County Hosp., 74 AD3d 716). [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 3:11 am
"Where evidentiary material is submitted on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, it may be considered by the court, but unless the defendant demonstrates, without significant dispute, that a material fact alleged by the complaint is not a fact at all, the motion will not be granted" (Quesada v Global Land, Inc., 35 AD3d 575, 576; see Caravousanos v Kings County Hosp., 74 AD3d 716). [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 3:15 pm
In the case of Murray v. [read post]
25 Dec 2017, 3:34 am
In Quijano v. [read post]
10 Jan 2016, 9:07 pm
MJJG Restaurant, LLC v Horry County, 102 F. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 12:02 pm
Back in 1215 King John was made to sign off on it.To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.The perhaps-Gladstonian phrase crossed the Atlantic at least by 1924 when the Ohio Supreme Court used it in Gohman v. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 12:39 am
Amato NASSAU COUNTYLand Use and PlanningCourt Finds Claim for Unconstitutionally Vague Ordinance Is Stated by Vendor Party Magic Enterprises Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2010, 6:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
