Search for: "State v. Apodaca"
Results 21 - 40
of 79
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2019, 11:52 am
And in a split decision in Apodaca v. [read post]
21 Sep 2008, 4:47 am
SCOTUSBlog (via Volokh) has Lee v. [read post]
18 May 2021, 4:55 am
Wade, also left the justices divided over the issue of respect for their prior precedent.The dispute over nonunanimous jury verdicts dates back almost 50 years, to the court’s 1972 ruling in Apodaca v. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
Véase Pueblo v. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 1:34 pm
” In 1972, in Apodaca v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:26 am
Appellate courts in Louisiana affirmed the conviction, relying on Apodaca v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 11:11 am
[Post by Jake McGowan] United States v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 10:39 am
Nearly 50 years ago, in Apodaca v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 10:54 am
Federal courts cannot decide whether there was a misapplication of state parole laws in order to grant habeas relief.U.S. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2019, 6:46 am
’” In light of Timbs, the brief urges the court to revisit its 1972-decision in Apodaca v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 11:53 pm
(Orin Kerr) I recently blogged about United States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 1:08 pm
The Court disclaimed the precedential value of Apodaca v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 6:53 pm
Luis Alberto Zambrana La decisión de Ramos v. [read post]
31 May 2021, 9:01 pm
Would applying Ramos retroactively harm states that reasonably and detrimentally relied on Apodaca? [read post]
17 May 2021, 11:01 am
The dispute over nonunanimous jury verdicts dates back almost 50 years, to the court’s 1972 ruling in Apodaca v. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 11:28 am
” However, Gorsuch explained, it “turns out that the Sixth Amendment’s otherwise simple story took a strange turn” with the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Apodaca v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 1:51 pm
Here’s the basic issue: In Apodaca v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 8:35 am
") SC18170 - State v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 5:50 pm
In 1972, in Apodaca v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 11:51 am
As the Supreme Court stated in footnote 35 of Stone v. [read post]
