Roe vs Wade

410 U.S. 113

Roe vs Wade (No. 70-18)

Marbury vs Madison 1803

Marbury v. Madison - 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803)
Marbury v. Madison

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Supreme Court of the United States

347 U.S. 483

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA

State v. Guthrie 1995


State v. Guthrie (1995)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

January 1995 Term
_________

NO. 22710
_________

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee

V.

DALE EDWARD GUTHRIE,
Defendant Below, Appellant

United States v. Virginia 518 u.s. 515

United States v. Virginia et al. (94-1941), 518 U.S. 515 (1996).

Nos. 94-1941 and 94-2107

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 94-1941 v. VIRGINIA et al. VIRGINIA, et al., PETITIONERS 94-2107



on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit

State vs Mann 1830

North Carolina v. Mann

The State v. John Mann, 13 N.C. 263 (1829).

United States v Cruikshank 1876

U.S. Supreme Court
U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

92 U.S. 542

UNITED STATES
v.
CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, JR.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-1260.

States v. Windsor No. 12-307

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 12–307. Argued March 27, 2013—Decided June 26, 2013

Law Dictionaries Online Free



State v. Williams 1872



11/14/84 State of Louisiana v. Wayne Williams

November 14, 1984

STATE OF LOUISIANA

v.

WAYNE WILLIAMS PUBLIC DOMAIN CITE: STATE

v.

WILLIAMS , 1872 (LA. APP. 4 CIR. 11/14/84); 460 SO. 2D 2

Before turning to defendant's assignments of error, we have reviewed the documents in the record and the 150 page transcript of the jury trial. We find no errors patent on the face of the record. Moreover, having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found the defendant guilty beyond a doubt of every element of the offense. State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La. 1982). In this circumstantial evidence case, the record sufficiently excludes every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. LSA-R.S. 15:438; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La. 1984).

COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT

AN APPEAL FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS NO. 294-592, SECTION "H" HONORABLE JAMES McKAY JUDGE. 1984.LA.2255

APPELLATE PANEL:

Court composed of Judges James C. Gulotta, Patrick M. Schott and Charles R. Ward

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE GULOTTA, Defendant appeals his conviction and twelve year sentence (with credit for time served) for manslaughter, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:31. We affirm.

Although defendant has filed six assignments of error, he characterizes four of them in his brief to be "without merit" or "not arguable". We therefore consider those assignments as waived. Because the remaining two assignments substantially deal with the same issue, we consider them together as one.

In essence, defendant complains the trial court erred in dismissing a juror for cause during the trial and substituting an alternate ...

____________________________________________

You can buy the rest of the decision at http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19841114_0002255.LA.htm/qx
or read a summary of the case at http://www.leagle.com/decision/1984462460So2d2_1462.xml/STATE%20v.%20WILLIAMS



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...