Search for: "State v. Kent"
Results 681 - 700
of 1,507
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2016, 4:28 am
United States, centering on an appeal of a restitution award. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 9:57 am
Kent case [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 6:56 am
Facts: This case (Crane Co. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 3:48 pm
(Orin Kerr) On September 30, Judge Doherty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana handed down a decision in Vidrine v. [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 3:59 am
Kansas v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 5:15 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 3:10 pm
Kent), with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 6:12 am
Supreme Court's analysis in State Farm v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 9:13 am
Rev. 867, 877 (1994) (In 1791, “[e]very state limited jury service to men; every state except Vermont restricted jury service to property owners or taxpayers; three states permitted only whites to serve; and one state, Maryland, disqualified atheists”); Taylor v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 1:00 pm
Kent, 128 S. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 7:18 am
Florida and Graham v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 6:50 am
United States and Barber v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 6:24 am
Kent County Sheriff's Deputy Gary Vickery arrived 15 minutes later and Vandepanne pointed out the suspicious file names while the backup . . . was still running. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 10:29 am
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held oral argument yesterday in Jones v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:33 am
In one of Winslow’s last major cases, State v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 4:03 am
The first is McWilliams v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:31 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that in Royal v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
PLAC was of course involved in the ensuing major drug- and device-specific Supreme Court preemption cases – win or lose: Lohr, Buckman, Riegel, Kent, Levine, etc.Take Daubert. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 4:53 pm
Kent E. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 11:13 am
Given the implications of the rule for which the petitioner in Martinez v. [read post]
