Search for: "Ortiz v. State"
Results 521 - 540
of 589
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2008, 4:27 am
Rost v. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 7:05 pm
People v. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 5:21 am
Ct. 2669; see also United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 1:10 pm
The State of Texas filed an amicus brief in this case at the petition stage. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 12:12 pm
Adams v. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 12:49 pm
Overriding Pennsylvania law to permit cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in federal court of state law economic loss claims.Stone v. [read post]
12 Jul 2008, 10:39 am
., and Sean Shores won in State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 4:00 pm
Patrick Dunn won in State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 1:54 pm
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 5:02 pm
Dada's appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit held in Banda Ortiz v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 3:51 pm
State of Indiana (NFP) Enrique Marcelino Ortiz-Torres v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
Sugarman, 909 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Ortiz v. [read post]
7 Jun 2008, 6:38 pm
As the federal courts have observed, a defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the publicly accessible exterior of his or her vehicle, and the undercarriage is part of the vehicle's exterior (see New York v Class, 475 U.S. 106, 112-114 [1986]; United States v Rascon-Ortiz, 994 F2d 749, 754 [10th Cir 1993]; see also People v Jackson, 143 AD2d 471, 472 [1988]). [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 1:56 pm
Ortiz and Commonwealth v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 1:33 am
Roosevelt UFSD; grants
Chapter
Signed Date
Effective Date9
01/28/2008
01/28/2008Last Act: 01/28/08 SIGNED CHAP.910
S6773
ROBACH -- Relates to compensation benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers state officers and employees; repealer;appropriation BLURB : Civ Serv. comp benefits
Chapter
Signed… [read post]
30 May 2008, 3:17 pm
In United States v. [read post]
27 May 2008, 10:06 am
Davis, No. 06-666 In the context of states/subdivisions' exemption of interest on their own bonds from their state income taxes, which are imposed on bond interest from other states, the Court rules that Kentucky's version of such a differential tax scheme does not offend the Commerce Clause. [read post]
27 May 2008, 9:50 am
Ctr. for Women v. [read post]
20 May 2008, 11:54 am
Of course, given departures and Booker variances, United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 1:29 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
