Search for: "K. S. v. State of Alabama" Results 81 - 100 of 206
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2016, 12:00 pm by John Elwood
Alabama, 15-7553, Flowers v. [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 9:32 am by John Elwood
  During Jones’s stay in the Third Circuit, the Court held in Welch v. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 3:02 am
  Barcal applied comment k, 2016 WL 1086028, at *3, because Alabama is a well-recognized across the board state. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 2:56 am by Kevin LaCroix
”  The customer checks were supposed to be deposited into a special Hantz broker-dealer (k)(2)(i) account, which according to Hantz’s Senior Vice President of Tax and Business, meant that the funds were not in Hantz’s possession. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
  Early in this blog’s existence, in 2007, the West Virginia Supreme Court in State ex rel. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 12:41 pm by Andrew Hamm
Alabama, the Court’s 2012 decision prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders, applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review. [read post]
2 Jan 2016, 2:51 pm by Thaddeus Mason Pope, J.D., Ph.D.
Speaker: Alexander A Boni-Saenz, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology Moderator: Roberta K. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
  Not all of these states have actually accepted such an argument, but they could.Alabama:  The wantonness statute in Alabama requires that “injury will likely or probably result” from the defendant’s act or omission. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 12:29 pm by MBettman
Although deportation may result in loss of all that makes life worth living (banishment from the United States and forced separation from one’s family), Ng Fung Ho v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 8:19 am by Maureen Johnston
Virginia instructs and as multiple state and federal courts have held, or at some indeterminate later time, as Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Oklahoma have held; and (2) whether a state court’s reliance on nondiagnostic criteria and lay observation violates this Court’s pronouncements in Atkins and Hall v. [read post]