Search for: "Cunningham v. Marks"
Results 1 - 20
of 107
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2007, 4:40 am
As an additional penalty, the court required that Appellant pay restitution in the amount of $955.Although no objection was made to the restitution order and notwithstanding Appellant immediately, at the sentencing hearing, paid the restitution, Appellant now complains that the order constitutes an illegal sentence because (1) the recipient was neither a victim nor a proper restitution payee, and (2) no evidence was introduced regarding the amount of restitution.Referring to Chaney v. [read post]
19 Jun 2008, 11:19 am
Marks, No. 05-30218 (6-13-08). [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 9:40 am
Larry Cunningham has posted on the recent Lyondell Chemical Co. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:03 pm
This morning the Court heard oral argument in King v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 12:55 pm
Like Mark posted, in a 6-3 ruling yesterday, SCOTUS rejected California's 30 year-old sentencing law. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 4:11 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 9:07 am
Corp. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2007, 1:44 pm
At CNNMoney.com, Shaheen Pasha has this article on Microsoft v. [read post]
27 Jan 2007, 4:44 pm
Justice Ginsburg's dissent in Bush v. [read post]
14 Dec 2006, 1:01 pm
Cunningham v. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 4:12 pm
Mark Walsh reports here (registration req'd) on the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case in this week's issue of Education Week. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 6:02 pm
Anthony List v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 5:29 am
See, e.g., Cunningham v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 11:00 pm
Cunningham v. [read post]
12 Oct 2006, 7:50 am
Though much can be said about the substance of the arguments--particularly Cunningham v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 7:09 am
Hibner, Jr. and Tyler Cunningham In Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 1:45 pm
Finally, Don Thompson of the AP reports here that the California senate approved a bill that would change the state's sentencing scheme in the wake of the Court's ruling in Cunningham v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 1:43 pm
Supreme Court in AT&T v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 3:08 pm
There is no requirement that actual damage be pleaded and proved in order to establish standing or to prevail in an opposition or cancellation proceeding.See Cunningham v. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 6:02 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Joshua Cunningham v. [read post]
