Search for: "Delay v. Texas" Results 681 - 700 of 1,836
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2013, 1:42 pm by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 56817 (SD TX, March 18, 2013), a Texas federal magistrate judge recommended that a Jewish inmate be permitted to move ahead with his suit seeking transfer to a different prison unit where kosher meals are available.In Williams v. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 6:27 am by Mark S. Humphreys
 This is pointed out in the 2001, United States Supreme Court opinion styled, Egelhoff v. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 7:41 am by Joy Waltemath
The plaintiffs failed to show the new rule impermissibly restricts employers’ ability to litigate threshold issues in a union election; invades employee privacy by impermissibly requiring disclosure of personal information; interferes with employers’ protected speech during union election campaigns; and that the Board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in adopting it (Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm by John Elwood
Texas, 10-10838, a capital case in which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a forty-page unpublished opinion affirming the trial court’s judgment on direct appeal. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 9:23 am by Eric Goldman
Google * Delayed Search Database Updating Isn’t Defamation–Ferrell v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 4:03 pm
The Texas financier is charged with 14 counts of fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and conspiracy. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:20 pm by Cicely Wilson
Texas, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (10/1/14)Constitutional Law, Criminal LawAppellant Thomas Delay was convicted of: (1) money laundering (a first-degree felony at the time); and (2) conspiracy to commit money laundering (then a second degree felony). [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 10:45 am by Joyce Kung
Its aim was to add technical specificity to Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test set forth in Rapanos v. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 2:48 pm by John Floyd
”   The CCA answered this question in the negative on February 15, 2023, in Edwards v. [read post]