Search for: "Grant v. State" Results 1741 - 1760 of 61,060
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Aug 2008, 8:48 pm
Again without having actually eyeballed the order, I understand that CAAF yesterday granted review of the something like the following issue:WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT A PROVISION IN APPELLANT'S PRETRIAL AGREEMENT TO "WAIVE ALL WAIVABLE MOTIONS" WAS AN EXPRESS WAIVER THAT BARS APPELLANT FROM ASSERTING ANY CLAIMS OF MULTIPLICITY OR UNREASONABLE MULTIPLICATION OF CHARGES ON APPEAL.United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 11:53 am by MBettman
On June 10, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 9:01 am by The Federalist Society
The first is whether states are required by the Fourteenth Amendment to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 10:26 pm by Daily Record Staff
Did the circuit court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Association on counts two, three, and four on the grounds that the Henrys failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the business judgment rule applied to preclude the claims asserted? [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 2:49 pm by Kent Scheidegger
The Ninth Circuit yesterday granted rehearing en banc in United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 9:55 am by Marcia Oddi
State of Indiana - "The trial court did not err in granting... [read post]
23 May 2008, 11:57 am
State of Indiana - Transfer was granted, with opinion by Justice Rucker, today in this sentencing case. [read post]
17 May 2011, 2:23 pm by Marcia Oddi
Among the cases granted transfer last Friday by the Supreme Court was State of Indiana v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 11:10 am by Marcia Oddi
State of Indiana, a 3-page, per curiam opinion, the Court grants transfer "to address the... [read post]
8 May 2009, 12:15 pm
The Supreme Court today granted transfer with per curiam opinion in the case of Alexa Whedon v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 10:39 am by Viking
  Review granted on the following specified issue: WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 11:15 am
In very general terms, Michigan state law protects drug manufacturers from liability in products cases unless the manufacturer defrauded the Food and Drug Administration. [read post]