Search for: "STATE V. LEE" Results 1861 - 1880 of 5,084
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2017, 5:03 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday the justices heard argument in Lee v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 5:42 pm by David Markus
United States, No. 15-1503 to be argued March 29, 2017Issue: Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 10:46 am by Andrew Hamm
The transcript in Lee v. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 3:48 am by Edith Roberts
Today the court will hear oral argument in Lee v. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
At Lock Law Blog, Ryan Lockman discusses Lee v. [read post]
25 Mar 2017, 4:44 pm by CrimProf BlogEditor
Issue summaries are from ScotusBlog, which also links to papers: Tuesday Lee v. [read post]
25 Mar 2017, 10:07 am by Amy Howe
In 1982, at the age of 13, Lee had moved from South Korea to the United States with his parents. [read post]
24 Mar 2017, 3:00 pm by Immigration Prof
On March 28, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in an ineffective assistance of counsel case (Lee v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 9:57 am by Gene Quinn
Lee, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), related to the petition for writ of certiorari filed by Oil States Energy Services, LLC, Petitioner, against Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et. al. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 6:30 am by Stephan Haggard
Tillerson emphasized the fact that Article V of the security treaty with Japan covers the disputed Senkaku Islands, alluded to strengthening trilateral cooperation between Japan, Korea and the United States, and restated of the defensive logic of THAAD. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Immel Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law    ---The Nature of the Judicial ProcessRandy Lee, Professor of Law at the Commonwealth Law School of Widener University    --Justice Cardozo's Thoughts on Judges and the LawJudge Kermit V. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 8:48 am by Eugene Volokh
Ninth Circuit: If the Supreme Court can call a health-care exchange established by the federal government “an exchange established by [a] State,” see King v. [read post]