Search for: "McGuire v. State"
Results 221 - 240
of 335
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2010, 6:10 pm
In 1991, in State v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 2:23 am
While the concurring opinion of Justice McGuire states that he feels that the reduction of the jury verdict to $1,600,000 did not go far enough, he did not state what he concluded would be the proper increased reduction. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 1:08 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 1:56 am
Similar appeals across Ohio are before the court, pending its eventual decision in State v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 7:03 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 1:38 am
Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 12:20 pm
Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 8:12 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 1:34 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 10:10 am
Consumers paid significantly more for goods, the AGs recall, during the years of the "fair trade laws" (Miller-Tydings Act of 1937 and the McGuire Act of 1952). [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 10:19 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 8:51 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 6:49 am
McGuire of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
20 Oct 2009, 6:33 am
McGuire of counsel), for respondent. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 7:05 am
Chambers v. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 7:40 pm
In Cherry v. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 3:00 am
Justice McGuire dissented, following the Court of Appeals' holdings. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 5:59 am
CV-09-701308).Gay People's Chronicle reports on the plaintiff, Langdon, the origins of the case, and a 2007 precedent that appears to undermine it - State v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
(Franklin, MA; John Mcdonough, President) Bay State Network, Inc. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 11:35 am
Earlier this week, while covering the Fordham Law v. [read post]
