Search for: "Chambers v. Department of Correction" Results 101 - 120 of 356
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2014, 10:58 pm by Jeff Gamso
Not long after I moved to Toledo from Texas, I was talking with a judge in his chambers. [read post]
7 May 2008, 10:48 am
It is certainly scrutiny that departments of corrections fear. [read post]
13 Apr 2019, 5:54 am by Paras Shah
As the Supreme Court’s opinion last term in Trump v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 1:08 am
Dept. of Corrections).......................................15Trial Tr., Timberlake v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 8:17 am by Steve Hall
Circuit Court of Appeals case was brought by the California First Amendment Coalition against California Department of Correction officials. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Court went on to point out that, at the time of publication, conviction data was posted on the Department of Corrections’ website. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 2:55 am by INFORRM
In the past, Mostyn J would typically only name the parties to financial remedies proceedings in his published judgment where there was some culpability (bad behaviour) or because there is information in the public domain already that needs to be corrected (see for example Appleton & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2689 (Fam) and Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315). [read post]
27 May 2017, 1:56 pm by Josh Blackman
Reading the Fourth Circuit’s en banc opinion in International Refugee Assistance Project v. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 9:44 pm
Over half an hour after the execution began, a doctor wearing a blue hood to cover his face entered the execution chamber to check Angel Diaz's vital signs. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 5:22 am by Amy Knight, Arden Chambers
In relation to those matters, the decision in Din was correct and remained good law. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:47 am by Kiran Bhat
Briefly: Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal reports that the Department of Justice is “prepared to correct its possibly misleading statements” made to the Court during proceedings in Nken v. [read post]