Search for: "STATE v. JARVIS" Results 121 - 140 of 151
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Nov 2010, 2:14 am by gmlevine
”  An early decision stated that the Panel could perform “limited modest factual research,” InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 11:01 pm by Mark Bennett
At Balkinization, guest blogger Sharon Dolovich explains why the Supreme Court’s Farmer v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 6:30 am by Ted Tjaden
” (this recalls a library school exercise I used to assign in the old days prior to there being online citators for UK cases – the exercise had students “note up” the famous Jarvis v. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 6:46 pm by suffolkmcls
Further Reading In re Jarvis, 53 F.3d 416, 422 (1st Cir. 1995) Richmond Newspapers v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 10:08 am by Erin Miller
Jarvis Docket: 09-729 Issue: Whether the holding of Swierkiewicz v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 4:32 pm by nyinjuries
(The March 15, 2008, collapse forced 300 apartments to be evacuated, one of whom was Jane Jarvis, who played the organ for the New York Mets at Shea Stadium from 1964 through 1979. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 7:09 am by Paul
As Jeff Jarvis put it in his post titled "The link economy v. the content economy": ... [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 11:30 am
., what do respondents mean when they say Roe v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 5:47 am by Rick Klau
Augsburg is a publisher affiliated with the ELCA, which is the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. [read post]
CITY OF EL PASO, THOMAS MAGUIRE, WILLIAM STERN, MARIO D'AGOSTINO, SAM JARVIS AND JOHN DOE(S); from El Paso County;8th district (08? [read post]
30 Aug 2008, 11:57 pm
For the purpose of marketing, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims last year that states: “grass fed standard states that grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]