Search for: "State v. Johnson & Taylor"
Results 1 - 20
of 271
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Nov 2010, 12:48 pm
Valerie Johnson and Narendra Ghosh represent Officer Taylor. [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 7:15 am
In United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2008, 12:25 am
Stores Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1223 and whether Alvarez was effectively nullified by the United States Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 5:22 am
And then there is the case of State v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 2:32 pm
In United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 9:43 pm
In Johnson v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 6:08 am
The Sixth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 5:19 am
Alvis, Bailey and Taylor note some minor legal differences between the defenses of congressional delegation theory advanced by Justice Louis Brandeis and James McReynolds in Myers v. [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 8:38 am
Aubry Johnson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 11:41 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
My supplemental briefing in that case was uncannily prescient of parts of Taylor v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 1:26 pm
In Taylor v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 7:57 pm
Davis won in State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 6:44 am
The Ninth’s latest Taylor decision is a riot.United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 12:15 pm
Johnson (Jerrold Elwin) [Automatic Appeal] (justice pro tempore to be assigned)2:00 P.M.(4) S214221 State of California ex rel. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 11:29 am
The 9th adopts the straightforward categorical approach crafted by Taylor, Deschamps, and Johnson. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 6:11 pm
I should say, with the exception of the Taylor case and perhaps your Shamsid-Deen appeal, I'm quite sympathetic to most of the arguments you presented in the cases I examined.1) For instance, the argument you expressed in State v. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 6:12 am
State v. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Johnson was not entitled to a statement of the reason for the termination of her probationary employment, citing York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760.Accordingly, said the court, Supreme Court properly granted the appointing authority’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s petition.* See, for example, 4 NYCRR 4.5(b) of the Rules of the State Civil Service Commission. [read post]
