Search for: "Santiago v. State"
Results 301 - 320
of 341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2009, 6:03 am
People v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 8:28 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal PracticeJuror Disqualified; Court Made Aware of Bias Impacting Testimony's Impartial ConsiderationUnited States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 6:22 pm
Matter of McGillicuddy’s Tap House, Ltd. v New York State Liquor Authority This Article 78 proceeding was brought about to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority finding petitioner McGillicuddy’s Tap House in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 4:26 am
State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2008, 4:49 pm
(Editor’s Note: This post is based on a client memorandum by Adam Emmerich, Mark Gordon, Sabastian V. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:29 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:50 am
Monday, in United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 1:08 pm
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied ALS’s motion to vacate, finding that manifest disregard of the law was no longer a basis for vacating or modifying arbitration awards in light of Hall Street and the First Circuit’s recent decision in Ramos-Santiago v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:00 pm
(D.Mass. 1992) 794 F.Supp. 29) and affirmed Santiago v. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 7:23 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2008, 3:34 pm
See United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 5:23 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
12 May 2008, 1:46 am
See Virginia Benmaman, Interpreter Issues on Appeal, Proteus: Newsletter of the Nat'l Ass'n of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, Fall 2000, and State v. [read post]
Implied consent is valid, and the need for advice as to consequences serves a purpose beyond consent
2 May 2008, 12:26 pm
Santiago v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 9:08 pm
Ramos-Santiago v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 11:09 am
In United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2008, 11:20 am
Furthermore, the issue for which the en banc court was convened is presently before the Supreme Court, see United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 2:27 pm
The circuit courts being divided,1 the Supreme Court is now likely to decide the issue, United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 1:29 pm
Alas, the First admits that the Supreme Court is likely to decide the issue in United States v. [read post]
9 Feb 2008, 3:44 am
" United States v. [read post]
