Search for: "STATE v MURPHY"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 2,304
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm
Murphy) Pretrial activity included not only substantial discovery and discovery-related motions, but also amended pleadings with affirmative defenses, counterclaims, third-party claims, Rule 12 motion, a mandamus proceeding in the court of appeals, and a trip to bankruptcy court with associated stay (and delay) in state court. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:30 am
Although the legal premise for such cases arose in the 1980s (see, for example State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] I.R. 362 and Murphy v DPP [1989] I.L.R.M. 71) real interest in the “missing evidence” concept as a method to seek to force the prohibition of an impending trial did not gather pace until the early 2000s. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 8:24 am
York v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 4:07 am
Network v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:56 pm
("ACI") appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 8:43 am
United States. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:54 am
DiBiase (Electronic Frontier Foundation) 3rd Circuit: Copyright infringement – Removing photographer’s name from image violates DMCA: Murphy v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:37 pm
And there’s the case of “Ramos v. [read post]
18 Jun 2011, 9:01 pm
S. 25, 41 (1949) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (overruled by Mapp v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 7:54 am
Virginia, which struck down state bans on interracial marriage. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 6:53 am
In Murphy v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 11:02 am
In the sentencing hearing Wednesday on State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 5:43 am
” The plaintiff will probably appeal, arguing that the 10-to-1 ratio is too low and relying on the statement in State Farm v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 8:38 pm
We do note that the most auspicious Judge Cardozo, in Murphy v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 1:17 pm
While for most Americans, Loving v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 4:30 am
Murphy v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 3:21 pm
Invoking al-Adahi, he stated: That means that there are powerful reasons for the government to rely on our opinion in Al-Adahi v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 2:38 am
In T.D. v Ireland [2001] 4 I.R 259, Murphy J. stated (at p. 316) that there is no constitutional obligation on Ireland to provide “any other form of socio-economic benefit for any of its citizens, however needy or deserving. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 12:23 pm
In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. [read post]
