Search for: "Rodriguez v. Texas" Results 221 - 240 of 351
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2013, 9:32 am by Don Cruse
(Set for argument February 4, 2014) Statute of repose vs. the Open Courts provision TENET HOSPITALS LIMITED, A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A PROVIDENCE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 8:40 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Coke's inauguration restored Democratic control in Texas.Imagine if, upon receipt of the Supreme Court order in Bush v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:09 pm by Eugene Volokh
My students Nate Barrett, Garry Padrta, and Paulette Rodriguez-Lopez worked on the brief, and Daniel P. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 3:37 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Texas previously was obliged to get such approval under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but that regime ended with the Supreme Court’s ruling in June in Shelby County v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
Strangelove" (16) "Flight of the Conchords" (4) "Game Change" (2) "Get Smart" (1) "Gran Torino" (10) "Grey Gardens" (13) "I Shouldn't Be Alive" (4) "Limelight" (3) "Meet the Press" (20) "Moby Dick" (5) "My Dinner with Andre" (34) "Mystery Science Theater" (2) "Project Runway" (78) "Romy and Michele's High School Reunion" (3) "Seinfeld" (72) "Sex and the City" (14) "Slacker" (11) "Slumdog Millionaire" (16) "SNL" (60) "Sopranos" (50) "South Park" (71) "Star Trek" (12) "Star Wars" (25) "Survivor" (50)… [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 6:36 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The style of the case is Farmers Insurance Exchange and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:28 am by Tom Crane
Rodriguez, the Texas Supreme Court found that Texas Labor Code 101.001 does not include that right. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 11:37 am by Gritsforbreakfast
This would create in state habeas law a remedy for lawyers' failure to advised their clients of collateral consequences, following a recent SCOTUS precedent on-point in Padilla v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 8:55 am by Don Cruse
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF EDINBURG v. [read post]