Search for: "U. S. v. Mays" Results 861 - 880 of 7,524
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2021, 10:39 pm by Josh Blackman
At the time, I wrote "I don't think there are five votes for retroactivity, but under the logic of Gorsuch's analysis, Teague very well may be satisfied. [read post]
25 Mar 2021, 3:00 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Here, in Cascardo v Dratel  2021 NY Slip Op 30667(U) March 4, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101055/2017 Judge: Erika M. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 4:05 am
In an Article 75 action to vacate an arbitration award, the moving party is required to prove its entitlement to a vacation of the arbitrator's award Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn., 2011 NY Slip Op 30254(U), Sup Ct, Albany County, Judge Joseph C. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 4:36 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Servider v Law Offs. of Cervini, Ronemus & Vilensky 2024 NY Slip Op 30160(U)January 12, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 161166/2022 Judge: Mary V. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
But Gorsuch's reasoning very well may be correct as a matter of first principles. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 2:53 pm
The government then appealed the case to the Supreme Court (Defense Department v. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 4:20 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
We discussed Gilbo v Horowitz  2018 NY Slip Op 31844(U)  July 31, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 158727/2017  Judge: Margaret A. [read post]
30 Sep 2017, 1:48 pm by Paul Kish
 They will also point to a specific rule that allows a Defendant to reserve a specific issue to go up on appeal even after a guilty plea (but the prosecutor and the Judge have to agree to this procedure, meaning that folks in Rod’s situation need to kind of play “mother may I” in order to vindicate their rights). [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:56 am by Victoria VanBuren
The issues is whether the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s holding that a state court may review an underlying employment agreement based upon a state statute restricting covenants not to compete, notwithstanding the presence of a valid arbitration clause, is foreclosed by the Federal Arbitration Act and forty-five years of authority from the Court (particularly Buckeye Check Cashing v. [read post]