Search for: "State v. Winchester"
Results 21 - 40
of 122
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2022, 3:39 am
” (Winchester v Little, 996 SW2d 818, 827 [Sup Ct, Tenn 1999].) [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 3:44 pm
On Aug. 14, a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled California's confiscation unconstitutional, in Duncan v. [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 4:27 pm
None of the accusations are true, he states. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 10:13 am
In any event, under the federal RICO statute (as opposed to the analogous state RICO statutes) showing perjury in a state court proceeding will not be enough to state a valid claim. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 5:34 pm
In other words, "the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" Id. at 627 (quoting United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2019, 10:16 pm
Afresh Church v. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 8:00 am
Butts v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 11:26 am
Winchester-Conant Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2003). [read post]
24 May 2019, 7:51 am
North Carolina Supreme Court Finds No Prejudicial Error Where Deliberating Jury Viewed Exhibits Without Defendant’s Consent In State v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 7:23 pm
In R. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 6:54 am
”) State v. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 12:40 pm
" The Tenth Circuit held in United States v. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 8:28 pm
Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC, 2018 WL 6619940, at *4 (N.D. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 2:26 pm
Veeck v. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 10:05 am
Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 9:30 pm
According to a 2018 ballot initiative in Washington State, purchasing any semiautomatic rifle—which goes all the way back to the first such American rifle, the Winchester of 1903—would require the owner to waive medical privacy and accept regular government inspections of her medical records. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 3:11 pm
Court v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 6:13 pm
See Brown v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 8:25 pm
Winchester-Conant Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Graham v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 2:33 pm
The case is O’Sullivan Films v. [read post]
