Search for: "In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic Court"
Results 101 - 120
of 146
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Moore, No. 07-3434 Denial of an application for habeas corpus from a conviction and sentence for gross sexual imposition and rape is affirmed where petitioner's Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy was not violated because the requisite high degree of necessity existed for a mistrial. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld a U.S. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm
” Contraception In 2007, in In Re: Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation, Gruender wrote for a panel of the 8th Circuit reversing a district court ruling holding that the failure of the railroad to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives used solely to prevent pregnancy constituted sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Conley, No. 07-1426 In an interlocutory appeal from a decision finding that a prisoner plaintiff in a suit for damages governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act is entitled by the Seventh Amendment to a jury trial on any debatable factual issues relating to the defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the ruling is reversed and remanded where: 1) juries decide cases and not issues of judicial traffic control; 2) the court can conduct a hearing on… [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 9:56 am
Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Ft. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 7:48 pm
Now, though, the 12th Court of Appeals [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Spencer, No. 07-40593 "A decision amending a 1995 judgment sentencing defendant for carjacking, resulting in an increase to the amount of restitution owed, is affirmed where: 1) under a reasonable reading of the relevant rules and case law, the district court's amendment amounted to a clerical revision that did not substantively alter defendant's sentence; and 2) thus, the time limitation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 was… [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 6:37 pm
The court stated In re David J. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:20 pm
The Court now told the lawyers to address much broader issues about the relationship of corporations to the First Amendment. [read post]
22 Jun 2023, 11:08 am
The bill tells the valuation-setter to: Ignore any value conferred by the platform to the JDPs due to the traffic referrals, “unless the covered platform does not automatically access and extract information. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:43 am
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the plaintiffs dropped the case, and the court dismissed it, BUT the court promised to re-evaluate the way it handles such cases. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 10:14 am
The Court now told the lawyers to address much broader issues about the relationship of corporations to the First Amendment. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 3:00 am
Supreme Court ruled the longstanding prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations violated the First Amendment. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 4:40 am
The Florida-based defendant was ordered to pay the defendant company $150,000 - the maximum that could be awarded as copyright infringement damages. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Branch, No. 06-4257 Conviction and sentence for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was no question that the police were allowed to detain defendant after witnessing him commit a traffic violation; and 2) during this detention the police formed a "reasonable suspicion" of ongoing criminal activity that justified extension of the traffic stop; and 3) defendant's other claims were without merit. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm
This is such a high-traffic area that I’ll have to be a little summary in describing the cases. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Because the government moved to vacate defendant's sentence well beyond the 7-day period provided for in Rule 35, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion or vacate the sentence. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:47 am
TVEyes rulings. [read post]
11 May 2016, 10:52 am
There, Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, ruling that law enforcement using a thermal-imaging device from a public street, aimed at a private home, was NOT constitutional and doing so was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
2 Apr 2021, 2:35 pm
Const. amend. [read post]
