Search for: "STATE v MARTINEZ"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,777
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2015, 5:04 am
Martinez Hoy, Indiana University Bloomington April 9, 2015 Cleveland State... [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 12:00 pm
Martinez, 230 Cal. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:05 am
Cox 14-531Issue: Whether this Court’s decision in Martinez v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 2:42 am
” At the Knowledge Center of the Council of State Governments, Lisa Soronen looks at last week’s decision in Perez v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 8:29 am
Martinez (2010). [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 5:15 am
” State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 12:53 pm
The Fredericksburg Care Company LP v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 9:26 pm
Martinez-Fuerte, 1976; – DWI enforcement, Michigan State Police v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 10:40 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 10:40 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 6:48 am
State v. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 7:07 am
Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 1:30 pm
§ 3599(f) to investigate and develop a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if the claim has been procedurally defaulted, regardless of whether the petitioner can establish cause for the default under Martinez v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
Williamson's second entry in the Top 25 was at No. 21 with his decision in the case of Martinez v. [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
In the middle are a small group of academic theorists who see value and resilience in the state but understand that the ideological pretensions of the Westphalian system have become unrealistic in a world now ordered through governance frameworks of a number of actors only some of which are states. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 6:15 am
Citizenship and Immigration Services, January 14, 2015, Martinez, R.). [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 12:18 pm
Becker & Wildes v. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 10:00 pm
Martinez granted in part, denied in part, and deferred in part the various motions. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 4:01 pm
The Advocate General has proposed that the Court should lay down a different rule from any of those adopted in previous cases (eDate/Martinez,Wintersteiger and Pinckney): jurisdiction limited to the courts of place of the event causing the damage, with a possible exception for the place of damage where the site was clearly and incontestably targeted towards one or more other Member States. [read post]
