Search for: "California v. Cooks"
Results 541 - 560
of 656
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2011, 8:05 am
The case is entitled Wiig v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
A 1954 California case called Hale v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 9:41 pm
Cooke: minimally. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 10:53 am
He also said Tash had shown a lack of insight into his crime by maintaining that he shot in self-defense, and that Mosley had a record of disciplinary offenses in prison.Both men lost appeals in state court but had temporary successes in federal court.That is, until the Supreme Court's forceful reminder last week that federal courts do not enjoy the role of final gatekeeper for California parole-eligible inmates. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 1:52 pm
The civil lawsuit, Beaty, et al. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:06 pm
Abuse & Neglect: FLORIDA SUIT SAYS HOME FAILED TO PREVENT RESIDENT'S FALLS, Cook v. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 11:45 pm
Cooke: Mr. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm
In Swarthourt v Cooke, Supreme Court No. 10-333, the Court granted certiorari on a rather boring question concerning habeas corpus law: “Whether a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner based on its view that the state court erred in applying the state-law standard of evidentiary sufficiency governing state parole decisions. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 12:17 pm
The two cases decided by the Court yesterday in Swarthout v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 9:46 am
The two cases decided by the Court yesterday in Swarthout v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 4:56 pm
Cooke. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:40 am
Cooke. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:14 am
" Engle v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 8:06 am
Cooke, regarding the Ninth Circuit's self-assigned additional duty as California's Parole Appeals Board, has been relisted for Friday's conference.Update: John Elwood has this relist watch at SCOTUSblog. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 10:02 am
California Pharmacists Assn., 09–1158, and Maxwell-Jolly v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 10:58 am
But in June, the Supreme Court in Holder v. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 4:46 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 5:01 am
(Docket Report) District Court N D California: False advertisement through third parties may constitute false marking, but facts must be pled with particularity: United States of America, ex. rel., et. al. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:40 pm
Grant and Greg Cook. [read post]
