Search for: "State v. Runnells"
Results 1 - 20
of 30
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2011, 8:36 am
Sessoms v Runnels, No. 08-17790 (6-3-11)(Tallman with Rawlinson; dissent by B. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 3:27 am
Newell, et al. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 1:29 pm
United States? [read post]
6 May 2010, 10:16 am
Under AEDPA, the 9th finds that the state's holding was not unreasonable.U.S. v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 1:33 pm
Runnels. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 11:34 am
Her arguments seem fairly weak, and especially in places, a fair piece of a results-oriented stretch to find as many procedural obstacles to relief as possible.Admittedly, Judge Ikuta does a decent job at the end of her dissent of making her position seem somewhat moderate, stating that "[a]ll this is not to say that the majority's view is unreasonable. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 12:26 pm
Thompson v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 10:35 am
Runnels, 343 F. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
In the recent opinion California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:26 pm
And under AEDPA, the state's interpretation was unreasonable.Thompson v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 6:23 am
In Lavin v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 5:07 am
State. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 8:30 am
U.S. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:27 pm
No, holds the 9th, because the state of the law at the time the state court decided the case was Oregon v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 5:58 am
See Runnells v. [read post]
8 Apr 2007, 9:55 am
Runnels, 2007 U.S. [read post]
1 Jan 2009, 1:42 pm
” The court, however, rapidly rejected this argument, noting that the Ninth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 3:55 am
Runnels, 2009 U.S. [read post]
5 Mar 2011, 3:53 pm
Alvarez v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 11:24 am
The dissenters wring their hands, shrug their shoulders, and say that under AEDPA the state court's ruling was not unreasonable (really).US v. [read post]
