Search for: "State v. Pitts" Results 41 - 60 of 217
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2009, 2:08 am
Pitt Subscription Required KINGS COUNTY Criminal Practice Defendant's Handwriting Exemplar Non-Testimonial, Lays Outside Scope of Fifth Amendment People v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 12:42 am by FDABlog HPM
  The Working Group would also be responsible for various reports and recommendations for FDA, DEA and various other federal and state agencies on several topics identified in the legislation. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 9:50 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
Like its federal counterpart, Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental... [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 5:48 am
A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously struck down a state voter ID law previously upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 6:16 pm
 Upon release, Pitts was required by state law to register as a sex offender and did so until October of 1998. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 12:39 pm by Greg Mersol
  We wrote about the lower court’s decision in Symczyk on September 8, 2011 [link], as well as a similar case decided by the Ninth Circuit at roughly the same time, Pitts v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 4:36 am by Larry Catá Backer
States developed systems of relations with other states, and the resulting rules defined a community of states and the international system. [read post]
18 Jan 2009, 12:57 pm
Last week, the online travel companies scored a big win when the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of a Motion to Dismiss in a case brought by Pitt County, in Pitt County v. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 8:17 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
The other three circuits (Second, Third, and Fifth) have similarly held that a defendant cannot “pick off” lead plaintiffs with an offer of judgment in order to avoid a class action.In Pitts v. [read post]