Search for: "Smith v. California Department of Corrections "
Results 41 - 60
of 156
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2012, 7:47 am
Briefly: Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal reports that the Department of Justice is “prepared to correct its possibly misleading statements” made to the Court during proceedings in Nken v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
" U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 23, 2008 Smith v. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 3:42 am
Neither the AG nor counsel for the Department of Corrections raised any issue regarding the memoranda. 6. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 11:40 am
Smith v. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 7:19 am
State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 8:05 pm
Missouri Department of Corrections v. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 10:40 am
Virginia Department of Corrections, 2011 U.S. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 8:29 pm
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 08, 2008 US v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 6:37 am
Miller and Smith v. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm
Nursing Homes: PATIENTS SUFFER SUB-PAR CARE AT CALIFORNIA FACILITIES, CLASS ACTION SAYS, Valentine v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am
Smith 19-1106Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 5:06 pm
A way that I think might indicate the correct result.One can go even deeper, of course. [read post]
24 Aug 2021, 9:05 am
In Tandon v. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:34 am
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdr U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 10, 2008 US v. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 7:57 am
This summary will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present. [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 3:23 pm
(relisted after the Sept. 29 conference) Idaho Department of Correction v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
Smith 13-946Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the deferential standard of review required by 28 U.S.C. [read post]
23 May 2011, 9:25 am
Two decades before Smith, Wisconsin v. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 7:04 am
State Bar of California and Lathrop v. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:45 pm
Diaz, No. 08-1575 A sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to knowingly possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute is affirmed where, because the decision to depart by levels is discretionary, the district court's decision to select the higher of two levels that encompassed the mandatory minimum sentence was procedural error.. [read post]
