Search for: "Edwards v State" Results 1901 - 1920 of 4,759
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2014, 4:05 am by Amy Howe
In The Washington Times, Edward Gnehm urges the Court to grant review in Arab Bank v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 1:27 pm by Elijah Yip
  But the lawsuit’s stay in federal court will be brief because federal district judge Edward Chen recently issued a decision sending the lawsuit back to state court. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:36 am by Steve Hall
And: The ruling leaves his treatment up to state mental health officials. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
  One need look no further than the frequent tweets of the president of the United States to prove the point. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 7:37 am by Walter Olson
Levine (20) Wisconsin’s “Vanna White veto” (0) Wisconsin Supreme Court follies: Heikkinen v. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 5:00 am by jonathanturley
The court, for example, unanimously struck down a California law in Edward v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 4:57 pm
Edwards Sixth Amendment — Federal Sentencing Guidelines — Deviation Based on Policy Disagreements: Kimbrough v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 12:04 pm by James Romoser
We thank the team at Election Law at Ohio State – especially Edward Foley, Steven Huefner, Matt Cooper and Gillian Thomson – for their invaluable collaboration. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 2:35 am
 Thus it was that this Kat made his way to the normally unpromising terrain of the Technology and Construction Court for England and Wales, where he found Noemalife SPA v Infinitt UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 2376 (TCC) a very much fact-driven decision of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart [Merpel finds this name perplexing: England, by itself or together with other bits of the British Isles, has had at least eight kings called Edward -- nine if you count Edward the… [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 11:05 am
" NFP criminal opinions today (4): Mary Francis Edwards v. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
 One of the Legislature’s stated purposes in amending Section 90.702 was “to adopt the standards for expert testimony in the courts of this state as provided in Daubert v. [read post]