Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that defense witnesses can be prevented from testifying under certain circumstances, even if that hurts the defense's case. [1] Taylor was the first case to hold that there is no absolute bar to blocking the testimony of a surprise witness, even if ...
Landmark Cases in Family Law; Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract; Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution; Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort; Law book; The Law of Nations; The Laws of Australia; The Laws of New Zealand; Learning the Law; Legal Positivism (book) Législation ottomane; Legislative Methods and Forms; Liber Horn; Lions in the ...
Illinois Reports (Full Text of Various Editions) Chronological Index to Information Contained in the Illinois Supreme Court Reporters, Excluding Opinions; The Lawyer's Reference Manual of Law Books and Citations: American Reports: Illinois (1884) (Notes on Volumes and Editions) Illinois Official Court Reports Act (705 ILCS 65/)
Here’s what the ruling means in the case filed by southern Illinois lawyer, Thomas DeVore In 2-1 ruling, Illinois court says gun law likely violates equal protection guarantee Skip to main content
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday again declined to block a Democratic-backed state ban in Illinois on assault-style rifles and large capacity magazines enacted after a deadly mass ...
Litigation was filed in federal court challenging the law shortly after it was enacted with final judgement in the Southern District of Illinois federal court issued Nov. 8.
Originally, the Illinois General Assembly met every two years, although special sessions were sometimes held, and the laws passed during a session were printed within a year of each session. [3] Early volumes of Illinois laws contained public and private laws, as well as the auditors and treasurer's report for that biennium. [ 3 ]
Taylor v. Taintor , 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is commonly credited as having decided that a person to whom a suspect is remanded , such as a bail bondsman , has sweeping rights to recover the suspect.