Search for: "McDaniel v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 233
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2021, 12:54 pm
And, as a backstop, it's a call to the Governor and Legislature to pick up the baton as well -- just in case the courts feel constrained by precedent and/or the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
14 Aug 2021, 6:31 am
” J.S.A. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2021, 6:06 am
In Borngne v. [read post]
11 May 2021, 2:55 am
The data is for 2018 for all countries except Australia, Greece, South Korea, and the United States, where the data is for 2017. [1] Christophe Chamley, “Optimal taxation of capital income in general equilibrium with infinite lives,” Econometrica 54:3 (1986), and Kenneth L. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 9:05 am
In McDaniel v R.J. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 12:49 pm
McDaniel, a case before the California Supreme Court that involves issues of racial bias in jury deliberation and sentencing decisions. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 6:14 pm
McDaniels, 647 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 12:19 pm
McDaniel, 7 M.J. 522, 523 (A.C.M.R. 1979); United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2019, 12:00 am
In Quilloin v. [read post]
19 Aug 2019, 9:00 pm
McDaniel, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Aug. 16, 2019). [read post]
4 Nov 2018, 10:56 am
Baltes, eds., 6 Internat’l Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences 4027 (2001). 9 See also McDaniel v. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 7:21 am
In Ridge Natural Resources v. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 3:02 am
In McDaniel v. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 8:16 am
Schwinn, John Marshall Law School The Sixth Circuit ruled last week in McDaniel v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 8:11 am
” See McDaniel v. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 8:11 am
McDaniels, 17-682, was dismissed under Supreme Court Rule 46.1 by agreement of the parties. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 12:51 pm
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 7:57 am
United States, 17-5864, James v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 11:43 am
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 7:06 am
McDaniels, 17-682, a state-on-top case arguing that a woman convicted of third-degree murder did not exhaust her double jeopardy claim as required for collateral review and that the lower court improperly concluded that the double jeopardy clause barred her retrial. [read post]
