Search for: "Ex Parte Baker"
Results 241 - 260
of 285
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
We do so here with respect to the Court's punitive damages/Due Process jurisprudence.That means we can essentially ignore the Part II of the Underwood article, entitled "Judicial Tort Reform of Punitive Damages. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 1:13 am
Baker & McKenzie Slashes U.K. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 8:35 am
Part of the initiative ...... [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 10:09 am
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (New York), June 5, 2009 Friday, NEWS, 592 words, Body parts trial ends; verdict likely today, Michael Zeigler VERDICTS (90%); CRIMINAL OFFENSES (90%); TESTIMONY ( ...... [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 9:01 am
“Privacy is a part of security,” said Schneier. [read post]
18 May 2009, 2:55 am
Paust is the Mike & Teresa Baker Law Center Professor at the University of Houston, a former U.S. [read post]
25 Apr 2009, 8:53 am
Your Ex-Employees Can Help. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
"o o April 1, 2009 decision hereo o SCOTUS docket hereo o SCOTUSwiki hereo o Noted here: Baker Hostetler; Colorado Employment Law Blog; ConstangyArgued - Awaiting DecisionAT&T v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:05 pm
Sometimes work intrudes.On April 1st, the CCA issued opinions in the following cases:AP-76,031, Ex parte David William Baker (Keasler, J.)(8:1): Here the CCA held that Baker was entitled to street time credit when the State erroneously released him even though the State issued a warrant after he went to China. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:04 pm
Noting that it had previously held in Ex parte Hale and Ex parte Rowe (and see the bonus summary here) that a defendant is entitled to street time credit towards the discharge of his sentence when he's erroneously released through no fault of his own. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 1:26 pm
Baker, No. 07-2220 Defendant's drug conspiracy sentence is affirmed in part, where there was sufficient evidence to show that Defendant was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy, but reversed in part, where there was insufficient evidence to permit the District Court to define Defendant's prior reckless endangerment conviction as a "crime of violence. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 10:57 am
Evid. 606(b) appears the applicable part of Mil. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
Court of First Instance rejects Lego’s appeal against OHIM’s Board of Appeals decision that Lego brick shape not registrable as a Community trade mark (Ars Technica) (Techdirt) OHIM opposition quality standards – the Office responds (IPKat) Charlie McCreevy puts forward proposal to reduce CTM fees by about 40% (Managing Intellectual Property) (Class 46) New protected geographical indications: French PGI Boeuf de Bazas for fresh meat and offal; Finnish PGI Kainuun… [read post]
24 Oct 2008, 11:17 pm
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.In Ronald Lynn Scott, Jr. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2008, 2:17 am
This reminded me a lot of the Jake Baker case from the mid-1990s [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 7:18 pm
Baker Sch Dist 5J 481 F.3d 770, 47 IDELR 182 (9th Cir. 4/3/2007). [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Baker, No. 06-40757 Conviction for possessing, receiving, and distributing child pornography is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the sentence vacated and remanded, where: 1) a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was properly denied; but 2) two government exhibits that were the basis for the distribution conviction were improperly admitted as lacking respectively a proper foundation and proper authentication. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 4:54 pm
Further, the outside influences likely compounded the error created by the ex parte communication. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 9:52 pm
Van Duyn ex rel Van Duyn v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Vaughn, No. 04-1623 Grant of a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to object to evidence relating to a racketeering charge; and 2) the evidence was independently admissible to prove the remaining charges against defendant, and he was therefore not prejudiced with respect to some charges. [read post]
