Search for: "Cain v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 386
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2016, 7:28 am
Cain 14-10008Issue: (1) Whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 9:30 pm
Cases that might be particularly well-suited to a historian's perspective include United States v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:13 am
Andrew Cain also reports on the Court’s order for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm
Cain, 14-10008 (seventh) asks questions about Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel; Taylor v. [read post]
24 Jan 2016, 11:23 am
Cain. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 8:12 am
Cain 14-10008Issue: (1) Whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am
Cain, 14-10008, another fifth-time relist, asks a pair of questions about Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 8:00 pm
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2016, 12:11 pm
Smith v. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 10:33 am
Cain, 14-10008, a capital case out of Louisiana, is our third fourth relist. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 10:45 am
Cain, 14-10008, a capital case out of Louisiana, landed its third relist as well. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
Cain, 14-10008, a capital case out of Louisiana, has been rescheduled, had its record requested, and has now been relisted – twice. [read post]
21 Nov 2015, 6:44 am
Cain 14-10008Issue: (1) Whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am
Cain, 14-10008, is a capital case out of Louisiana that the Court has already rescheduled once and called for the record in. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 10:26 am
Cain, Commercial Disputes and Compulsory Arbitration, 44 Bus. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 8:22 am
El Tribunal Supremo de Luisiana determinó en State v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 6:31 am
Florida (summarized here) and Brumfield v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 6:31 am
Florida (summarized here) and Brumfield v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Wiretap Act (also known as Title III) prohibits the interception of a live communication (e.g., a telephone call) only if the interception occurs in the United States; it does not prohibit or regulate wiretaps (interception) conducted abroad.[8] Similarly, the U.S. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 6:55 am
Basically, they are: 1) the statutory law exception of Scolaro v Ohio University; 2) a lease or other contract may create a duty/obligation to remove ice and snow; 3) if you undertake to remove snow/ice, you can be held liable if you do so negligently, or in a way that makes the area more hazardous than it had been without your efforts at snow removal; and 4) you may be held liable for unnatural accumulations of ice which result, for example from the negligent design of a parking lot (See… [read post]
