Search for: "Hunter v. United States" Results 381 - 400 of 573
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jan 2010, 9:45 am by Steve Hall
AEDPA precludes federal habeas relief when a state court has adjudicated a federal claim on its merits, unless the state court ruling was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm by Kara M. Maciel
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:19 pm by Kara M. Maciel
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm by Kara M. Maciel
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 3:38 am
Hunter, which concerned the viability of the repeat violent offender specification after State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:44 am by S
In relation to the new discretionary ground, I cannot add to what Andrew Arden QC and Caroline Hunter said in their editorial on the subject in the Journal of Housing Law last year (see [2011] JHL 115) and do not intend to do so. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:44 am by S
In relation to the new discretionary ground, I cannot add to what Andrew Arden QC and Caroline Hunter said in their editorial on the subject in the Journal of Housing Law last year (see [2011] JHL 115) and do not intend to do so. [read post]
3 May 2020, 8:55 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The departure from the American approach appears to have occurred as early as in 1875 in United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
United States, 740 F.2d 1428, 1440 (8th Cir. 1984); Madsen v. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 9:00 pm by Michael C. Dorf
DorfMy latest Verdict column examines the all-but-endorsement of the unitary executive theory by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in Friday's SCOTUS decision in United States ex rel Polansky v. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 9:33 am by Ad Law Defense
  It did so on the basis of its allegation that the listing mechanism violated the California and United States Constitutions. [read post]