Search for: "Martinez v. California"
Results 61 - 80
of 505
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2013, 8:23 am
See Martinez v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 1:37 pm
., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 4:34 am
SEARCH & SEIZUREUnited States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 8:00 am
Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341.The California Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for review and On June 26, ordered the parties to submit letter briefs: discussing the relevance of Martinez v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:12 pm
Martinez v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 3:37 pm
Apologies for the delay in posting this; just dropped the in-laws off at LAX and am catching up on things.At any rate, I say "good" rather than "great" because while Martinez v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 11:12 am
Wells Fargo Martinez v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 4:03 pm
For many of the reasons the Court of Appeal articulates here as well as some additional ones as well.But the California Supreme Court should review the case regardless. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 9:04 am
The case name was People v. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 10:50 am
As well as to each of the justices of the California Supreme Court. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 11:43 am
These three criteria were formally recognized in a 2010 California Supreme Court case entitled, Martinez v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 1:37 pm
(Martinez v. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 3:06 pm
United States and Rodriguez-Martinez v. [read post]
1 May 2018, 2:19 pm
In 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Martinez v. [read post]
1 May 2018, 2:19 pm
In 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Martinez v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 8:28 pm
Martinez v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 2:40 am
Martinez, (Docket No. 08-1371) (Order List). [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 9:25 pm
In that regard (the law, not the beignets), the Court of Appeal, in Martinez, et al. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 12:37 pm
Three years ago, when the Court of Appeal struck down Section 1814 of the Insurance Code, which prohibits bail companies from paying inmates from referring potential customers, as an unconstitutional infringement of free speech, I was skeptical, saying (among other things):Letting bail agents make "arrangements" with inmates to refer clients to 'em clearly, in my view, distorts the marketplace, and punishing such conduct will lead to a marketplace more closely (albeit admittedly still… [read post]
24 Sep 2017, 9:51 am
The Ninth finds a little light, amongst the gray.United States v. [read post]
