Search for: "Padilla v. People" Results 41 - 60 of 170
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2015, 2:56 pm by John Elwood
Padilla, 14-434, which challenged a mootness determination in a case involving opponents of same-sex marriage who sought a First-Amendment-based exemption from California’s campaign-finance disclosure requirements. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 6:15 am by John Elwood
Texas, 14-292, involving a quadruple homicide from so long ago that people still thought I had promise. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 7:36 pm by Linda McClain
Garcia-Padilla, a federal constitutional challenge brought by four same-sex couples  to Article 68 of Puerto Rico’s Civil Code, which defines marriage as “originating in a civil contract whereby a man and woman mutually agree to become husband and wife. . . [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 3:24 pm by Stephen Bilkis
In the meantime, on 30 June 2010 the defendant through his newly retained counsel, AF filed a Criminal Procedure Law 440 motion (1) praying the Court for retroactive application to his case of a recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 1:12 pm by Stephen Bilkis
However, the prosecution relied on the case of People v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 3:52 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Based on People v Elufe, People v Fiumefreddo and People v Harris, to effectuate a valid guilty plea the defendant must enter the plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:42 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Defendant cites the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Jose Padilla v Kentucky, 130 S. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 1:06 pm
 Seems definitely a totally violent guy.Nonetheless, we want to kill people for crimes they actually committed, right? [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
United States, No. 11-820 (Feb. 20, 2013).We've blogged about what I still believe to be the landmark decision of Padilla v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 6:01 pm by Brian Shiffrin
For example, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 U.S. ___, 130 SCT  1473 [2010]), the Supreme Court held that regardless of whether the immigration consequences of a plea are described as direct or collateral, when deportation  is clearly a mandatory consequence, counsel has a duty to so advise. [read post]