Search for: "United States v. Padilla" Results 301 - 320 of 514
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2011, 6:59 am by Viking
Castillo has posted Immigration Consequences: A Primer for Texas Criminal Defense Attorneys in Light of Padilla v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 11:02 am by Tony Mauro
United States, a case pending before the high court on the state secrets privilege. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 8:58 am by immigrationprof
From Huffington Post: Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 8:26 am by Susan I. Nelson
Huffington Post by Bill Ong Hing, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:59 pm by Aaron Pelley
Sandoval: The Court found that in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 1:27 pm by Albert Wan
In a not-so-surprising but still significant decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 6:23 am by Ted Folkman
As a lawyer, she was probably best known for arguing United Church of Christ v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:22 pm by Jonathan Hafetz
Brennan all but acknowledged that the prior military detention of individuals arrested in the United States– Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri (I represented the latter)–were illegal. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 6:08 am by Albert Wan
United States, the court in the Southern District of Florida rejected a defendant’s Padilla-based ineffective assistance claim without deciding whether Padilla would apply retroactively. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 8:32 am by Viking
  He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over thirty years; his wife and two children are all U.S. citizens. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 11:39 am by Layla Kuhl
In lieu of granting leave to appeal the Court reversed the Court of Appeals in People v McKinney, concluding that the defendant’s statement that he would “just as soon wait” until he had an attorney before talking to the police, followed immediately by his statement that he was willing to discuss the “circumstances,” was not an unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel or a statement declaring an intention to remain silent under Davis v… [read post]