Search for: "Harrington v. State"
Results 341 - 360
of 451
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2009, 11:39 pm
Holding The Court held that its conclusion was dictated by its decision in United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:44 pm
Harrington, 442 Mass. 692 (2004); Saggese v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 2:06 pm
Subsequently, the Court fired a torpedo amidships in Harrington v. [read post]
7 May 2019, 12:35 pm
The military commission in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 11:46 am
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 101 (“Strickland does not establish that a cursory investigation automatically justifies a tactical decision.... [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 6:33 pm
Harrington. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 10:47 am
In commenting on Murthy v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 5:33 am
There is no stated necessity that the need or the risk be significant or substantial. [read post]
23 May 2009, 11:28 am
Harrington, William G. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 2:47 pm
State v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 3:57 pm
"(93) The defendants appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court as part of the four case litigation encompassed in Brown v. [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 5:05 pm
And then SCOTUS added a gloss in Harrington v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 10:20 am
He speaks to that briefly, and turns, at long last, to the arraignment of the accused in United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Pinholster, which held that habeas review is limited to the record that was before the state court; and (3) whether the decision of the Second Circuit affords the state court the deference required by 28 U.S.C § 2254(d), as interpreted by this Court in Harrington v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 11:56 am
United States, Canales v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 11:05 am
Harrington, 462 So. 2d 861, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Valliappan v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 3:57 pm
Kindred v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 9:00 am
First, as it relates to voluntariness: Ruiz marshals United States v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 7:44 am
” [Flint River Steamboat Co. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 7:55 pm
See Cardiovention, Inc. v. [read post]
