Search for: "BAKER v. THE STATE"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 2,917
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2009, 2:42 pm
District Court for the Central District of California, urging dismissal of Smelt v. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:05 am
Baker v. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:05 am
Baker v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 6:15 am
See, Warner M, Baker SP, Li G, Smith GS. [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]
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]
22 Jan 2022, 8:46 am
State v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 12:21 pm
Therefore, we reverse Young's conviction.In State of Indiana v. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 2:27 am
United Black Fund v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:01 pm
In Venn 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]
24 Jan 2020, 8:29 am
(The court’s decision in Baker v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 2:54 pm
In Raul 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]
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]
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]
20 May 2008, 10:27 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Jason Burnam v. [read post]
