Search for: "Martin v. Ohio" Results 241 - 260 of 289
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2009, 4:14 am
Stanford student Martine Cicconi previews today’s argument in Bobby v. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 7:27 am
April 14, 2009) (available here), Judge Martin writes a concurrence in the affirmance of an Ohio death penalty that explores this issue from a judicial perspective. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
Lederle Laboratories, 732 P.2d 297, 306-07 (Idaho 1987).Illinois: Martin v. [read post]
12 Mar 2009, 7:18 am
Ohio) clarified the nature of sentencing review in United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 3:02 am
Charity, Western New England College School of Law, Springfield, Massachusetts; William V. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 11:00 pm
The Ohio Supreme Court holds that retained memories can qualify as trade secrets: In Al Minor & Assocs. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
Issue: Whether, under Seminole Tribe v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 3:24 am
However, few teams will change in strength too much from last year.College FootballGame MatchupsAugust 23 to September 1,2008 (visitor v. home)Game below played on August 30 unless otherwise stated. [read post]
21 May 2008, 7:25 am
Martin et al., No. 2007-1939, 2008 Ohio 1809; 2008 Ohio Lexis 1024 (April 23, 2008) [read post]
12 May 2008, 11:26 am
New enforcement data added to HHS' web site on HIPAA privacy compliance & enforcement - New Jersey attorney Helen Oscislawski of Fox Rothschild in the firm's HIPAA Health Law Blog Divorce and the housing market in New Hampshire - Manchester lawyer Kysa Crusco in her New Hampshire Family Law Blog Iowa enacts 43rd state breach notification law - Los Angeles attorney Tanya Forsheit of Proskauer Rose in the firm's Privacy Law Blog Writing the better contract from Anita… [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 10:40 am
Martin, 117 Ohio St.3d 58, 2008-Ohio-292, the Ohio Supreme Court recently held that memorizing information, including specifically client lists, constitutes trade secret misappropriation. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
Grant of habeas relief vacating petitioner's sentence of death, and ordering that he be resentenced to receive a sentence other than death, is affirmed where the Double Jeopardy Clause bars respondent-warden's claim that, even though petitioner was found to be mentally retarded on direct appeal, Ohio should be permitted to relitigate the finding now that it has taken on new legal significance in light of Atkins v. [read post]