Search for: "In re Belt, Petitioner"
Results 21 - 30
of 30
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2020, 2:05 pm
And you can think about that as you frame your arguments, as you draft your briefs, when you’re reading the precedents and you’re looking back at old arguments about what the justices are concerned about and who’s concerned about what and when you’re trying to count to five, which is what you’re trying to do in the Supreme Court. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 2:22 pm
Petitioners noted the EPA final rule in a letter to the Court last Friday and counsel could not get out his first sentence before the Chief Justice interrupted him: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, before – before we get into that, congratulations to your clients … getting almost all the relief they’re looking for under the new rule issued on Friday. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Allen, No. 08–9156 In capital habeas proceedings, a court of appeals' reversal of a grant of petitioner's petition is affirmed where a state court's conclusion that defense counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of petitioner's mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Allen, No. 08–9156 In capital habeas proceedings, a court of appeals' reversal of a grant of petitioner's petition is affirmed where a state court's conclusion that defense counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of petitioner's mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm
Medical Device: MEDICAL DEVICE SUPPLIER ISN'T 'HEALTH CARE PROVIDER', Orthopedic Res. v. [read post]
3 May 2014, 8:56 am
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Co., 461 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming summary judgment in disparate treatment discharge case, and noting judicial tendency to require “comparability” between plaintiffs and comparison group as a “natural response to cherry-picking by plaintiffs”); Miller v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 6:21 pm
We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 1:40 pm
Answering machines were relegated to Seinfeld re-runs. [read post]
20 Jan 2019, 11:43 pm
Argued October 3, 2018—Decided January 15, 2019 Petitioner New Prime Inc. is an interstate trucking company, and respondent Dominic Oliveira is one of its drivers. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 12:19 pm
Click Here DECISIONS Judge: Forest Service erred in Little Belts travel plan. [read post]
