Search for: "HOLT v. STATE"
Results 1 - 20
of 342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2025, 6:37 am
State v. [read post]
9 Apr 2025, 6:56 pm
Criminal law — Reopening of case — Sufficiency of evidence A jury, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, convicted Shelton Holt, appellant, of second-degree murder and use of […] [read post]
21 Mar 2025, 8:50 am
United States, No. 2023-1320 (Fed. [read post]
31 Jan 2025, 9:25 am
The opinions well illustrate how many state courts interpret their state constitutions. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:54 pm
The decision, issued in MVL USA, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2025, 8:27 am
Mahmoud v. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 5:00 am
For example, the Arkansas Supreme Court specifically rejected the premise that the lost chance doctrine applied to wrongful death claims in Holt v. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 4:05 pm
Elenis and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 6:06 am
From Holt v. [read post]
31 Jul 2024, 12:42 pm
Holt (Tribal Search Warrant; Probable Cause; Good Faith Exception) Narragansett Indian Tribe v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 4:41 am
Here are the materials in United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 3:09 pm
Co. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Appeal of M.A., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,070 [citing Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 (1999), which states that “mere denial of receipt” is insufficient to rebut a presumption of service]). [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Appeal of M.A., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,070 [citing Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122 (1999), which states that “mere denial of receipt” is insufficient to rebut a presumption of service]). [read post]
14 May 2024, 1:13 pm
Read the opinion The post ARTHUR HOLT v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 8:09 am
Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) and Vikram David Amar (Illinois) in Trump v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 8:05 am
The historians' amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
In Holt v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
In Holt v. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 7:26 am
Sources: Complaint at 32, Borné et. al. v. [read post]