Search for: "Blake v. Smith"
Results 1 - 20
of 106
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2007, 8:55 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 1:43 pm
Next, Jimmy Azadian of Enterprise Counsel Goup and summer associate Kyser Blakely present Several Blockbuster Cases Remain on the Docket This Term with predictions of the outcomes in Whole Woman's Health v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 5:36 pm
The case of R (Interim Board of X) v Ofsted ([2016] EWHC 2004 (Admin)) provides a useful guide for public authorities and claimants who may be involved in public law injunctions. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 5:21 am
Although the real debate was likely to be about the innuendo meaning, R v Smith (Graham Westgarth) ([2002] EWCA Crim 683, [2003] 1 Cr App R 13) had dealt with what constituted the “making” of an indecent image, R v Smith considered. (3) Even if the pleaded defence was factually contentious and went beyond the statement, there was no need for injunctive relief against the press, whose editors were well aware of the duty not to prejudice criminal trials… [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 9:15 pm
(On the football front, what was more surprising: how badly Troy Smith played or how badly Jim Tressel was out-coached? [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 7:03 am
Id. at 22 (citing Fatta v. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 6:27 am
" The case for that is Ross v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:37 am
From the perspective of a police officer, as the law requires the shooting be considered under Graham v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 12:20 pm
Yesterday's Court of Appeals decision in the case of Prewett v. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 6:21 am
U.S. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 10:10 am
For publication opinions today (3): Smith & Wesson Corp., et al & United States of America v. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 5:10 pm
Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Motion to file a supplemental brief to assert, for the first time, a challenge to defendant's sentence under Blakely v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 11:33 am
Law excludes that kind of evidence because, while Smith’s lawyer can test the truth of Doe’s testimony that Smith told her X, the lawyer cannot use cross-examination to test the truth of what Smith allegedly said. [read post]
15 Mar 2007, 2:13 am
US v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 2:00 pm
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 4:05 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 3:44 am
But the answer may indicate how the Court, and in particular now-Justice Sotomayor, will continue to view Apprendi/Blakely/Booker-type issues.Berghuis v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 11:59 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Brian Blake v. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 2:26 pm
Ct. 2348 (2000), Blakely v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 4:52 pm
Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. [read post]
