Search for: "State v Gonzalez"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 1,557
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2010, 3:41 am
”The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of Supreme Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez granting the United Federation of Teacher Local 2’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Santiago’s complaint.* The federal National Labor Relations Act does not cover public employees in New York State. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 10:21 am
On March 10, 2010, the KSC heard arguments in State of Kansas (Appellee) v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 7:21 pm
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 6:37 pm
(People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]; Gordon v People, 33 NY 501 [1865]; Graves v United States, 150 US 118, 121 [1893]).Importantly, this rule applies even where a party is not required to produce any evidence or that type of evidence. [read post]
20 Mar 2010, 1:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 4:50 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 9:33 am
Gonzalez, No. 07-30098 (3-16-10). [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 12:09 am
Gonzalez; the Eleventh Circuit’s decision last week to join the Tenth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 2:42 pm
Today the Ninth Circuit denied DOJ’s petition for rehearing en banc in Gonzalez, the case rejecting the exception, so the clear circuit split stays: United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 1:59 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 4:50 pm
Background In Pham v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 2:45 pm
Gonzalez, 578 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying the exclusionary rule to a pre-Gant search), with United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:37 pm
” Pfeiffer v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 8:58 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 1:43 pm
State Bar R. art. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:18 am
” State v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:52 am
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 5:04 pm
Gonzalez in the Seventh Circuit [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 11:04 am
Contrary to the defendant¹s contention, as stated by the Court of Appeals, ³[t]here is no requirement in Nallan [Nallan v. [read post]
