Search for: "Hicks v. United States"
Results 161 - 180
of 215
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Mar 2010, 4:50 am
As the United States Supreme Court stated in St. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:07 am
United States). [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 6:44 am
Lundin, United States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Tennessee The Honorable Cecelia G. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm
“The United States brought this case to protect an important body of water, Pyramid Lake,” said Ignacia S. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 5:21 am
The United States Supreme Court has said, the plain view doctrine may `not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 7:27 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 6:59 am
United States, 129 S.Ct. 840 (2009))), and United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 3:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 4:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 1:06 pm
Hicks, Chief Cook aboard the vessel, filed suit in Texas claiming unseaworthiness of the vessel for failing to better protect the crew from pirates. [read post]
4 May 2009, 10:43 am
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed on Sixth Amendment grounds, but the United States Supreme Court instead agreed with the trial judge. [read post]
2 May 2009, 9:57 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 7:47 am
United States (1964)). [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 5:30 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 8:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 9:48 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 9:50 am
Hypo 2: United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2009, 7:14 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 9:23 pm
Consider a case like United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
