Search for: "Martinez v. Department of Justice"
Results 121 - 140
of 201
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2012, 3:06 pm
The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, reversed and reinstated the action ( 80 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2011] ). [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 5:38 pm
On March 20, 2012 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Martinez v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:58 am
The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, reversed and reinstated the action ( 80 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2011] ). [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 7:47 am
Frye, Martinez v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 3:10 am
The Second Department holds: The 120-day service provision of CPLR 306-b can be extended by a court, upon motion " upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice (CPLR 306-b). [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 7:58 am
North Carolina, 11-6624, appears to be a straightforward hold for Martinez v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:17 pm
The US Trustee Program is a component of the Department of Justice that oversees the federal Bankruptcy system. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 8:06 am
Just last month, the Supreme Court applied administrative law principles to reverse a decision of the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 8:35 am
On October 22, 2008, the Honorable Neil V. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 6:20 am
The Justice Department and the State Department acknowledged the laundering this week. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 3:53 pm
Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 5:40 pm
SIMPSON, Appellant, v. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 3:16 pm
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 3:16 pm
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; John V. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 7:54 am
Louis Martinez, III, No. 10-0426 Shell Oil Company, et al. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 10:50 am
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 6:16 am
Government may afford religious institutions exemptions from certain laws in order to protect religious freedom, but is not constitutionally required to, according to the landmark case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 10:27 am
I quote Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion above on the "narrower grounds" rationale of Marks v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 5:27 pm
Should the Justice Department investigate? [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 11:45 pm
Leyva-Martinez: The Court affirmed Mr. [read post]
