Search for: "State v. Shawn B."
Results 1 - 20
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2007, 4:12 am
" In regard to waiver of counsel, Rule 11-106(b)(1) provides:1. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:42 am
Shawn Witte, a Minor, by his next friend and Parent, Teresa Witte, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Teresa Witte, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 12:43 pm
This Act may be cited as the `Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008?. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 8:20 am
Shawn Taylor, No. 09-5315 (available here)Ankle bracelets cost $575. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 3:50 pm
In Shawn E. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
Many thanks to attorney Matthew B. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 12:00 am
STATE v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:21 pm
State v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 6:02 am
As this article notes, the case was originally filed in state court but was later taken over by federal authorities. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 10:21 am
Kat friend Shawn Poon reports on a recent judgment in Singapore that applies a modified approach. [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 10:53 am
When Lauren Moskowitz, the attorney for Diana Montoya Alvarez, stood up this morning to argue on behalf of the respondent in the international family law dispute Lozano v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
STATE v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 10:15 am
The Perils of Competent Consumer Advocacy in Texas: Adverse Caselaw for a Job Well-Done Shawn C. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 6:41 am
P. 12(b)(6) (stating that a complaint may be dismissed for `failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted’). [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:04 am
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
30 May 2008, 11:23 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Joshua B. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 7:24 pm
In 1969, Timothy Leary challenged his arrest for possession of marijuana under the Act; the case of Leary v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
In The Patissier LLP v Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd [2019] SGIPOS 10, the Applicant (The Patissier LLP) sought to revoke the mark(“Subject Mark”) registered in the name Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd, on the ground of non-use under S 22(1)(a) and (b) of Singapore’s Trade Marks Act (“TMA”). [read post]
