Search for: "State v. Clark" Results 1 - 20 of 3,070
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jan 2015, 6:14 am by MBettman
Clark, which was an appeal by the state from the merit decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 1:37 pm by Daily Record Staff
The appellant Clark was convicted of two counts of first-degree assault, ... [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 10:04 am by MBettman
On October 30, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in State v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:44 am by Amy Howe
The first opinion this morning came in United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 7:26 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal law — Sufficiency of the evidence — Possession of marijuana and PCP Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Prince George’s County, Maryland, of possession of phencyclidine (PCP) and marijuana, appellant, Dante Clark, presents the following question for our review: Was the evidence sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for possession of marijuana ... [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 10:38 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal law — Sufficiency of the evidence — Gun possession by convicted felon On November 15, 2017, appellant, Anthony Jerome Clark Jr., was convicted by a jury sitting in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of possession of a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a disqualifying crime. [read post]
21 Jun 2014, 11:00 am by Paul Caron
TaxProf Blog op-ed: Reflections on United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 9:09 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal law — Sufficiency of the evidence — Firearm possession Following a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, Eric Lewis Clark, appellant, was convicted of distribution of cocaine and two counts of possession of a firearm after conviction for a drug offense. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 8:49 am
Horsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark and another (Secretary of State for Justice intervening) [2008] EWHC 2327 (Ch); [2008] WLR (D) 307 “The exercise of a statutory power of sale under s 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 after a relevant default by the mortgagor was not a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of art 1of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [read post]