Search for: "BAKER v. THE STATE"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 2,907
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2024, 2:35 pm
Baker (Downey Brand LLP) represent X. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 2:30 pm
The case is Parker et al. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 2:30 pm
The case is Parker et al. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 2:54 pm
In Raul v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 6:15 am
See, Warner M, Baker SP, Li G, Smith GS. [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 2:42 pm
District Court for the Central District of California, urging dismissal of Smelt v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
These states follow the logic of Marvin v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 12:21 pm
Therefore, we reverse Young's conviction.In State of Indiana v. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:01 pm
In Venn v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
The district court granted the request for expert witness fees, but denied the personnel expense request finding that the phrase “all the expenses of the proceedings” was not specific and explicit to include such expenses due to the presumption under the “American Rule” that litigants pay their own attorneys’ fees (quoting Baker Botts L.L.P. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:55 pm
This was the question that the Indiana Supreme Court addressed in its opinion issued on March 22, 2012, in the case of Hunt Construction Group, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2025, 3:21 am
On PBS’s “Washington Week,” Baker stated: “On the physical violence part, and that has also been seen on both sides too, of course. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 2:27 am
United Black Fund v. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 8:29 am
(The court’s decision in Baker v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 6:54 am
Baker), has not yet been scheduled for oral argument, but all three cases are ones in which Scalia was likely among the four justices who voted to grant. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 2:11 am
Its careful analysis of the variety of supposed technological solutions should be mandatory reading for legislators, and I would hope that, the next time a court is assessing the constitutionality of a relevant piece of legislation (as US courts did on a number of occasions re: filtering), that this material (assuming the already-infamous Footnote 17 in Exxon v Baker doesn’t prevent it) can be of assistance there, too. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 8:08 am
Look no further than the primary establishment clause case the state cited: McCreary County v. [read post]
28 Apr 2025, 2:00 pm
It points to the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Rendell-Baker v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 4:27 am
” Ropes & Gray offers a video discussion of two patent cases that will be argued in the December session, Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
