Search for: "Mays v. State" Results 221 - 240 of 128,312
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2009, 6:35 am
By Mike LimrickOn Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a conflict in the Indiana Court of Appeals by holding that “the State may challenge the legality of a criminal sentence by appeal without first filing a motion to correct erroneous sentence,” and that the sentencing challenge may be made for the first time in the State’s response brief on appeal.In Hardley v. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 7:37 pm by Michael DelSignore
The standard for providing an intellectual disability may soon change if the United States Supreme Court grants cert to the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 1:35 pm
The Court devotes two thirds of its opinion to addressing Young's legal insufficiency claim, and to revisiting the Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 8:31 am by InvestorLawyers
Continue reading The post Recent Secondary Market Pricing for Cole Credit Property Trust V Suggests Investors May Have Incurred Principal Losses appeared first on Investor Lawyers Blog. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 2:36 pm by Tarunabh Khaitan
The following are the most important orders given by the Justices Sudershan Reddy and Surinder Singh Nijjar of the Supreme Court in the case of Nandini Sundar v State of Chattisgarh (2011):1. [read post]
1 May 2019, 6:46 am by MBettman
On May 8, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in State of Ohio v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 2:27 am by Maurice Sheridan, Matrix
The judgments in R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (McGeogh) v The Lord President of the Council and Another (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 63 were handed down in October 2013. [read post]
16 May 2008, 1:59 am
R (Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 464; [2008] WLR (D) 150 “The scope of the deeming provision in Sch 3, Pt 2, para 3(2) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004, which required states listed in Sch 2, Pt 2, para 2 of the Act to be treated as countries safe for a person to be returned, was limited to the actual process of executive decision or adjudication of whether a person's removal would… [read post]