Search for: "Hawkins v. State Bar"
Results 81 - 100
of 106
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2020, 5:06 am
In Lujan v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 9:56 am
Roddenbery, Chair of the Family Law Section, State Bar of Georgia, of the law firm of Holland Schaeffer Roddenbery Blitch LLP, Atlanta, will present the Opening Remarks. [read post]
25 May 2010, 9:56 am
Roddenbery, Chair of the Family Law Section, State Bar of Georgia, of the law firm of Holland Schaeffer Roddenbery Blitch LLP, Atlanta, will present the Opening Remarks. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 5:28 am
Hawkins, June 1, 2017,Scirica, A.). [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 10:25 am
State v. [read post]
20 Sep 2012, 8:45 am
Hawkins v. [read post]
17 Nov 2022, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 8:36 am
Co. v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 10:57 am
Hardt v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36 (1961). 2126, 2130. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 9:47 am
The landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 10:16 am
Of particular concern right now are those who are behind bars while awaiting trial. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 3:00 am
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Geary filed a federal complaint arguing the union infringed on her constitutionally protected rights under the foundation-won CWA v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
DeGennaro, No. 06-4195 Order holding that retrial of defendants would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and denying motions to bar retrial and dismiss the indictment is reversed where: 1) the decision of the trial court that there was "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial was an abuse of discretion; and 2) a statement by counsel in support of a motion for mistrial, quickly reconsidered, does not preclude the defendant from claiming that the Double Jeopardy Clause… [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 1:50 pm
Couvillion, Note, Defending for its life: ChampionsWorld LLC v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Hawkins, No. 06-4061 "Conviction and sentence for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(b), are affirmed over claims that: 1) section 2423(b) is an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Power; and 2) the district court erred in relying upon defendant's plea agreement with the government to deny his motions attacking the constitutionality of section 2423(b) on First Amendment… [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 11:51 am
In an 1838 case, Buddington v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 10:09 am
” Finally, Justice Clarence Thomas – who once served as the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – dissented from the court’s denial of review in VF Jeanswear v. [read post]
