Search for: "In Re: Amendments to Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to The Bar"
Results 41 - 60
of 244
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2022, 9:00 am
The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on appeal, but the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed. [read post]
8 Aug 2021, 10:03 am
Judge LeGrow wrote that in keeping with the high court’s ruling in a coverage action for an appraisal suit in In Re Solera Insur. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 4:58 pm
CO., 579 NE 2d 322 – Ill: Supreme Court 1991 It is not just attorney-client communication that is privileged. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 7:37 am
While Justice Robinson is careful to explain that the testimony might not be barred under all circumstances, she can’t say its admission here was harmless. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm
A1 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, INC., Appellee. 3rd District.Civil procedure -- Summary judgment -- Affidavit in opposition to motion -- Declaration -- Where declarations submitted in opposition to summary judgment were based upon personal knowledge and sworn under penalty of perjury, and motion to exclude these documents was not made until summary judgment hearing, trial court erred in denying movant's motion for continuance to correct technical differences between a declaration and… [read post]
7 Jan 2021, 1:28 pm
The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court thoroughly considered the final factor; nevertheless, the deficiencies related to the findings on the first two factors prevented it from meaningfully applying the three-prong test. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 4:10 am
Supreme Court rulings have established that race-based policies are constitutional only if they achieve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to do so. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 8:34 am
This post summarizes published criminal decisions from the North Carolina Supreme Court released on December 18, 2020. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 1:45 pm
Arguing that lower courts are split on whether defendants can forfeit confrontation rights in this way, Hemphill asks the justices to review the New York Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the trial court and to rule that the statement’s admission violated the Sixth Amendment. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:45 am
United States,[vi] the Supreme Court that the companion mail-fraud statute applied only to schemes to defraud others of money or property, not honest services. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 12:05 pm
IN RE: GRACE OLAECHEA VS. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 10:10 am
Gun rights in 2019, she dissented from a ruling in which the majority on a three-judge panel rejected the argument that a federal law, state law that barred people who’ve been convicted of felonies from having guns violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. [read post]
11 Sep 2020, 10:20 am
ABA Journal, Harvard Law introduces social media policy about classroom statements Patrick Barry (Michigan), Editing and Interleaving Bloomberg Law, California Supreme Court Urged to Ditch Online Bar Exam In re: Petition to Amend the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar and the Rules Regulating the... [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 6:16 am
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES -- GUARDIANSHIP. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 12:15 am
In re: Petition to Amend the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar and the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, No. 20-1236 (Fla. [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 5:48 pm
There are many tools of discovery which the Illinois Supreme Court Rules provides. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 3:07 am
We wrote an op-ed sort of critiquing the Kentucky Supreme Court’s approach to the bar exam, and a sitting Kentucky Supreme Court Justice wrote a 1000 word op-ed in which he personally called us out. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 5:01 am
” In 1972, the Supreme Court clarified in Gravel v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 5:14 am
You’re going to look like a bunch of jerks. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 11:18 am
This requirement was aimed at chilling the efforts of itinerant, out-of-state screening physicians, whose conduct came under scrutiny in In re Silica.[11] Daubert, Its Progeny, and Amended Rule of Evidence 702 The Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert was not only a watershed in the analysis of expert evidence generally but also reflected specific concerns about expert testimony in the area of product liability litigation. [read post]
