Search for: "State v. Lopez-Daniel" Results 41 - 60 of 74
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2015, 7:04 pm by Michael Froomkin
Watkins/Proctor & Gamble Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Nicole Porter, The Sentencing Project Panel III: The Criminalization of Immigration Law Since the Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in INS v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 11:43 am
Daniel Sokol, Assistant Professor of Law, Levin College of Law, University of Florida, Competition Policy and Comparative Corporate Governance of State Owned Enterprises John K.M. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 5:11 pm
SCOGGINS; from Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-06-00368-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-20-07)08-0276 DANIEL ROEHRS, ET AL. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2018, 1:59 pm
United States, 303 F.2d 366, 368 (3rd Cir., 1962) (“the date of the original return governs”); Mabel Elevator Co. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 9:10 am by Eric Goldman
This is a troubling ruling, and I hope it doesn’t take root as precedent. * Lopez v. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 8:46 am
Daniel, No. 07-2413 A conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition under section 2256 of Title 14 of the Virgin Islands Code is reversed where the government was required to prove the absence of authorization as an element of the offense, but failed to do so in this case. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 3:48 am by Seán Binder
  Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted on Saturday that he requested a state pardon board review the case of Daniel Perry, who was found guilty of murdering a Black Lives Matter protester, Garrett Foster, at a demonstration in the summer of 2020 in Austin, Texas. [read post]
8 May 2014, 12:44 pm by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Juno Mother Earth Asset Management, LLC, Eugenio Verzili and Arturo Allan Rodriguez Lopez a/k/a Arturo RodriguezCase number: 11-cv-1778 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)Case filed: March 15, 2011Qualifying Judgment/Order: March 31, 2014 04/22/2014 07/21/2014 2014-43 SEC v. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
Civil Rights Law section 65 was amended to provide that any person may elect to resume the use of a former middle name upon divorce or annulment and that the state shall not impose a fee to change the middle name on a state identifying document due to a change in marital status. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:24 am
’ (China Law Blog)   Europe ECJ finds similar marks on wine and glasses not likely to cause confusion: Waterford Wedgewood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, OHIM (Class 46) (IPKat) AG Colomer opines in Maple leaf trade mark battle: joined cases American Clothing Associates SA v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates SA (IPKat) (Excess Copyright) CFI: Restitutio and time limits: how does the law stand now for CTMs? [read post]