Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 1781 - 1800
of 16,690
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2014, 4:36 pm
The defendant further stated that the judge had a personal dislike for the defendant’s counsel which he demonstrated with the aid of the People v Oberoi in which the defense counsel appeared in front of the judge to conduct a pre-trial suppression hearing. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 3:30 am
Eisenstadt harshly critiques Burrage v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 4:00 am
In Neustadter v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 1:45 pm
"(cross-posted from the Banking Law Prof Blog) [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 6:08 am
Lemus was also impeached on cross-examination. [read post]
27 Jan 2021, 8:36 am
Craigslist * Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court * Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 6:56 am
Magedson, MA v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 7:34 am
Driscoll v. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 6:21 am
In Trinity Lutheran Church v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 4:02 am
Moore v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 1:28 pm
But take your lumps and admit that what transpired should not have occurred.Because only then will you have a chance of getting paragraphs like this one from Judge Kozinski:"After oral argument before us, the United States Attorney 'concede[d] that [the] cross-examination of defendant was error' and advised us that she 'has instituted—in addition to existing training—a semi-monthly training update for the Criminal Division regarding pre-trial… [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 11:19 am
The first case the district court relied upon was a constitutional case arising from state law habeas. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 3:19 pm
It would be unsurprising if a quarter of all those accused of domestic abuse would also express concern at their vulnerability in having to try and defend themselves against false allegations without help and against a state [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 3:47 am
At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod maintains that Knick v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 2:27 am
The Seattle Times yesterday reported on the July 11 oral argument in the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment in Experience Hendrix, LLC, v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 4:58 am
As in Bass v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 8:02 am
Case citation: Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 11:19 am
By Jason Rantanen Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2021, 7:22 am
See United States v. [read post]
