Search for: "Padilla v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 792
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2017, 9:25 am
United States (full disclosure — I was on the Chaidez team), the court found Padilla non-retroactive. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 5:51 am
Padilla v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 7:17 am
Supreme Court this morning went back into the area of criminal defense lawyers giving bad advice on the immigration consequences of a conviction, a can of worms it opened in its 2010 decision of Padilla v. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 7:14 am
I briefed and argued the appeal.The case is Padilla v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 12:26 am
Some examples in recent months include: excerpts from Supreme Court decision Padilla v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:22 am
In Padilla v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 11:09 am
For example, in the case of Padilla v. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 1:26 pm
By Little V. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:53 am
” In recent cases like Padilla v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 10:12 pm
§ 27.031(b)(4); TEX.R.CIV.P. 501.1[2]; Padilla v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 10:12 pm
§ 27.031(b)(4); TEX.R.CIV.P. 501.1[2]; Padilla v. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 11:01 am
” Nonetheless, the SJC considered the defendant’s argument that Padilla v. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 11:01 am
” Nonetheless, the SJC considered the defendant’s argument that Padilla v. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 3:49 am
Descarga el documento: United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 11:12 am
Padilla v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 10:16 am
(quoting Padilla v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 4:06 am
Del récord en vídeo de la vista del Comité, se desprende que la enmienda fue adoptada a viva voz. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 11:10 am
Questions regarding the application of this rear-end collision presumption were at the core of a recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Padilla v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 11:10 am
Questions regarding the application of this rear-end collision presumption were at the core of a recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Padilla v. [read post]
16 Oct 2016, 12:29 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]