Search for: "State v. Cooey"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2007, 12:09 pm
District Court Judge Gregory Frost allowed the inclusion of six more death row inmates to the pending Cooey v. [read post]
4 Jul 2007, 4:51 am
Some earlier related posts: US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals orders dismissal of Cooey v. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 6:33 pm
Download Cooey v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 5:43 pm
The United States Supreme Court rejected that argument in Baze v. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 10:17 am
State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 6:47 am
State v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 6:55 am
As this Court made very clear in State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2010, 5:56 pm
Case 2:04-cv-01156- GLF-MRA Document 594 Filed 10/23/09 Page 1 of 4UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RICHARD COOEY, et al., Plaintiffs Case No. 2:04-cv-1156 JUDGE GREGORY FROST v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 1:51 am
Cooey v. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 12:48 pm
However, as Biros is also an intervenor in the district court in the matter appealed as No. 05-4057, Cooey v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 9:51 am
See, e.g., Cooey v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 9:23 am
Here's an excerpt:US District Court Judge Gregory Frost today granted inclusion of five additional Ohio death row inmates to the Cooey v. [read post]
13 Jun 2015, 9:01 am
Francis v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:29 pm
Cooey v. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 7:42 pm
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court. 07a0146p.06 2007/04/23 Cooey (Filiaggi) v. [read post]
20 Apr 2007, 6:26 am
However, ODPI is reporting here a important new development:An attorney for James Filiaggi is filing a motion in US District Court today seeking inclusion of James Filiaggi in the Cooey v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 1:34 am
Taft continues to be appealed.Six more death row inmates in Ohio joined Cooey v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 2:14 pm
Cooey v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 11:48 am
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 08, 2009 Cooey v. [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 8:17 pm
For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. 08a0372p.06 2008/10/10 S.E. v. [read post]
