Search for: "In Re: Amendments to Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to The Bar"
Results 181 - 200
of 244
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Mukasey, No. 06-30361 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(6), as construed by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 3:54 pm
The Illinois Supreme Court held, in Heck v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Riggi, No. 061280 Conviction on charges arising out of involvement in an organized crime family, including racketeering, murder and related conspiracies, is vacated and remanded where admission of eight plea allocutions of non-testifying co-conspirators amounted to plain error under the intervening authority of Crawford v. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
Link to Court of Appeals Docket here ---> 01-15-00943-CV Background In their Second Amended Statement of Claim, the Parkers, pursuant to the rules of the Financial Industry National Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"),[1] initiated arbitration proceedings against IB. [read post]
8 May 2011, 7:01 pm
In re: People v. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 11:46 am
., law professor emerita “I’m very grateful to Cornell LII and its tireless staff for providing free and up-to-date access to the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, plus its US Supreme Court advance sheets provided under its Hermes Project. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 5:44 am
There were nine COVID-related securities suit filings in the year’s first eight months (compared to 14 filings in the first eight months of 2022) and nine SPAC-related securities suit filings (compared to 19 SPAC-related filings in the first eight months of 2022). [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:59 pm
Sandoval: The Court found that in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm
Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 8:08 am
Vonner, No. 05-5295 "A sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) district courts may, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, find sentencing facts in applying the now-advisory sentencing guidelines; 2) defendant forfeited an argument that the district court failed adequately to explain its rejection of his arguments for leniency and could not show plain error; and 3) his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 11:16 pm
Blog post-US Supreme Court Bankruptcy Watch: Readying for Stern v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am
Our thirst for guidance from the California Supreme Court remains unquenched as the court still has five CEQA cases under review. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:19 am
Rogers, the United States Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment does not categorically require the state to provide counsel for all indigent parents facing a civil contempt hearing for non-payment of child support where the other parent is also not represented by counsel. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 7:26 am
We reverse the order granting a new trial and remand the matter back to the trial court to rule on the JNOV. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Carey v. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 9:00 pm
The First Amendment, though, doesn’t say anything either way about heckling.We find Professor Tushnet’s analysis here unconvincing, and unsupported by anything in Supreme Court case law. [read post]
4 Jan 2021, 4:10 am
Supreme Court rulings have established that race-based policies are constitutional only if they achieve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to do so. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm
Daniel Bernstine, President & CEO, Law School Admission Council Supreme Court Update–Individual Rights This part of the Supreme Court Update focuses on recently decided cases pertaining to governmental powers and individual rights (e.g., Free Speech, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection). [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 12:14 pm
Raveendran Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 4:19 am
(IP Dragon) DuPont learns that global IP theft doesn’t stop at the border (China Hearsay) Europe The chocolate menagerie: General Court decides on bunny, reindeer and mouse shapes: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v OHIM (jiplp) ECJ rules on legislative limitations on copyright protection for designs in Europe: Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA (jiplp) AG delivers opinion in Viking Gas A/S v BP Gas A/S concerning trade mark law and refilling of gas bottles… [read post]
