Search for: "Law v. Cross"
Results 181 - 200
of 16,678
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Sep 2011, 9:59 am
Covell v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 12:01 am
Speakers include academics and practitioners (Massimo V. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 9:13 pm
Trial Court Properly Granted Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action Challenging Infertility Treatment Benefits because California Law Requires only that Blue Cross “Offer” such Coverage on Terms Negotiated with Employer, not that the Insurance Benefits Provide “Full” Coverage for Infertility Treatments California Appellate Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Blue Cross of California alleging for… [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 10:40 am
Civil Rights Laws, and State Tort Law; 2. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 7:15 am
Floyd LJ also agreed with statements made by Jacob LJ in Markem v Zipher [2005] EWCA Civ 267 that cross-examination on key evidence is important for procedural fairness, not just from the perspective of the parties, but also the witnesses. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 10:56 am
Case citation: Lexmark International Inc. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:13 am
” Yeager v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 7:51 am
Law Lessons from NICHOLAS AND DANA BROWN V. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:44 pm
Supreme Court heard argument for the second time in the case of Hernandez v. [read post]
25 Nov 2020, 10:13 am
Citing Adams v. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
Sometimes the case law suggests th [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 4:40 am
The US Supreme Court today issued a new ruling in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 5:09 am
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Doe v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 12:31 pm
Tax law — Hotel rental taxes — Refundability Appellee/cross-appellant Lockheed Martin sought a refund of the hotel rental taxes it paid over the course of three years to appellant/cross-appellee Montgomery County in connection with a facility at its corporate headquarters that offers sleeping accommodations to employees and guests who pay for overnight stays. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 7:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 12:35 pm
Supreme Court; and Theodore V. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 8:00 am
In Alexander v. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 5:00 am
As the Court said in citing past cases, “These cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other prosecution witness for purposes of cross-examination. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:50 pm
In the battle of “piracy” v. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 12:30 am
iStock_000000114540_1.jpg In child pornography prosecution, in the absence of any showing that the officers had a direct or personal financial interest in the result of the case, the trial court properly excluded cross-examinationthat the Sheriff's Office would receive about 25 percent of the proceeds resulting from the forfeiture of the defendant's home, in United States v. [read post]
