Search for: "Baker v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 3,449
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2021, 7:26 pm
Baker v. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 10:37 am
The judge relied upon Baker v. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 11:15 pm
United States, No. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 10:37 am
The judge relied upon Baker v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 2:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:03 pm
In Baker v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:56 pm
CAAF’s decision in United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 1:01 am
Senator Eastland was in opposition to Baker’s past desegregation work including Brown v. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 2:02 am
Matt Edge won in State v. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm
CAAF has decided United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 2:45 pm
And just in case anyone thought that the first argument was still twitching after the court took care of the new argument, Judge Baker administers a dicta double-tap at the end of the opinion affirming NMCCA's handling of the first theory.I should add that I was Toy's counsel at CCA and then the IMC at a sentencing rehearing. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 4:00 am
Tuesday's Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that the trial court relied on a 1971 Minnesota Supreme Court decision-- Baker v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 10:08 am
The legal enforcement of Brown v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 11:57 am
SCOTUS Sees Both Sides The Supreme Court pointed to its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 12:59 pm
See also, Baker v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 7:51 am
Washington State Department of Licensing v. [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 12:27 pm
The opinion is identified as D.L. v. [read post]
31 May 2007, 3:11 pm
Congress could have expressly limited the Rule's application to specific acts, but it did not do so.On part two Judge Baker found error, but ultimately held no prejudice under the constitutional standard (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), citing United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 9:06 pm
Peterson v. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 4:37 am
” Governor Hutchison who signed the law stated his main impetus is to directly challenge Roe v Wade. [read post]
