Search for: "Plunkett v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2017, 12:31 pm
Facts: This case (Plunkett v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 7:37 am
Plunkett, which was decided recently in the New York State Court of Appeals. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 6:23 am
`had [evidentiary] value where people were talking about stuff [Plunkett] believed to be drugs. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 3:52 pm
In Grindle v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 9:34 am
Under McCormick v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 9:29 pm
This was not the intent of the former Superintendent Plunkett, who sought to insure the rights of Floyd County educators were protected. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 12:24 pm
Plunkett v Clarion HA. [read post]
4 Jan 2017, 7:09 pm
” Kiker slip op. at 7, quoting from United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 11:38 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2021, 12:03 pm
See Plunkett v. [read post]
15 May 2019, 4:00 am
The courted followed Baumeister v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 4:55 pm
Some Questions to Ask Yourself - Columbus lawyer Teri Rasmussen of Plunkett Cooney in her Ohio Practical Business Law Blog Willow Bend v. [read post]
9 Sep 2009, 11:21 am
The office of the state public defender has reportedly committed an additional $25,000. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 5:30 pm
- Columbus attorney Teri Rasmussen of Plunkett Cooney in her Ohio Practical Business Law Blog Classic Cases - Castano v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 5:38 pm
Doug Powell's BarfBlog Defense Invokes Roe v. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 6:39 pm
– Chicago lawyer Kenneth Dolin of Seyfarth Shaw on the firm’s Employer Labor Relations Blog Waiting for Claim Assignment Doesn’t Toll Statute of Limitations: American Family v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:00 am
We’re pleased to report that, in Martin v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 8:41 am
Messer, Angela Messer, Debtors Daren Messer & Angela Messer v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:50 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:09 am
Gambling machines STATE OF TEXAS v. $1,760.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 37 "8" LINER MACHINES, No. 12-0718 Per Curiam The Court agreed with the State that certain “eight-liner” machines qualified as gambling equipment for purposes of civil forfeiture. [read post]
