Search for: "OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER v"
Results 161 - 180
of 11,790
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2022, 6:17 am
On 2 February 2022, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal v O’Connor (Northern Ireland) [2022] UKSC 4; [2022] 1 WLR 903. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 9:42 am
In Bent v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 6:49 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 11:25 am
State v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 3:56 am
Finally, I have been second guessing my cross examination of the defendant for a long time. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 9:23 pm
State v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 9:39 am
Law Lessons from State of NEW JERSEY, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment, o/b/o Common Pension Fund A v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 10:08 am
On February 28, 2011, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Michigan v. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 12:42 pm
State v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 5:30 am
Attorney in Utah pursued the case of United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
A disqualified Section 3 defendant is barred from holding "any office, civil or military, under any States. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 4:28 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
Bagley, II, an employee of the City of Rochester, was named as a co-defendant in this action.** Although not all public employees are public officers, except in rare situations all public officers are public employees. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 3:51 am
State v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 9:01 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 9:01 pm
State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 3:11 pm
The question at issue is whether a defendant must be physically present to successfully object when a co-tenant gives permission to police officers to conduct a warrantless search, or whether the defendant’s previously stated objection to a warrantless search, while physically present, is a continuing assertion of Fourth Amendment rights that cannot later be overriden by the co-tenant. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 4:02 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 5:27 am
State v. [read post]
1 Jul 2016, 6:31 am
To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally accessed and/or used non public [sic] information governed under LEIN, [and] that the defendant did so for personal use[ ] or personal gain.People v. [read post]
