Search for: "HAWKINS v. HAWKINS"
Results 241 - 260
of 698
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2009, 10:13 am
U.S. v., Gerritsen, No. 06-50552 (7-10-09). [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 7:14 pm
The petition of the day is: Hawkins v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 12:53 pm
., v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:41 pm
Hawkins v. [read post]
23 Feb 2008, 7:11 pm
Phillips Eastern District of Kentucky at London 08a0081p.06 Hawkins v. [read post]
10 Aug 2007, 1:00 pm
If only because Judge Bea writes an opinion that is deliberately -- and pervasively -- centered around 9/11; indeed, so much so that Judge Graber (joined by Judges Hawkins and Wardlaw) writes a concurrence that says that while they agree with the result, they "cannot join the majority's irrelevant and distracting references to 9/11 and terrorists. [read post]
15 Jun 2006, 11:14 am
In Morrison v. [read post]
31 May 2008, 8:04 am
Hawkins, 2008 U.S. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 4:00 am
" Citing Matter of Hawkins v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 9:39 pm
Berkeley v 1080 Delaware, LLC, 2015 WL 403885 (Ca. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 5:20 am
Jones v. [read post]
6 Feb 2008, 10:57 am
But rarely do you see one attorney slammed and another attorney praised.But that's the case here.The lawyer slammed -- at least by Judge Hawkins -- is Armando Garcia. [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 12:25 pm
US v. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 2:38 pm
But sometimes, the original author says things so well that there's nothing that can be done to improve on what's already there.This is one of those latter occasions.Judge Hawkins concurs, and writes the following:"Michael Laursen stands convicted of the “use” of a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of that conduct and is currently serving the fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence the statute… [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 6:36 am
U.S. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 7:29 am
In this week’s case (Proctor-McLeod v. [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 2:33 am
US v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 6:00 am
Yesterday afternoon, an eleven-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel heard oral argument in Dukes v. [read post]
