Search for: "STATE v MARTINEZ" Results 1621 - 1640 of 1,777
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2008, 4:23 pm
    The “hygiene hypothesis” is an accepted phenomenon that states children without (or with reduced) exposure to infectious agents (especially parasites) and other microorganisms are more susceptible to developing allergic disease.2. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:20 pm
On February 1, a unanimous five-judge panel of the New York State Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which is based in Buffalo, ruled in Martinez v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 2:28 pm
  The Martinez decision is a binding precedent for now, so no trial judge in the state would rule against the governor on this. [read post]
25 May 2008, 8:18 pm
Mendoza-Martinez 2-18-1963 Question:Did Section 401(j) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, divesting U.S. citizens of their citizenship for remaining outside the United States during a time of war or national emergency in order to avoid the draft, violate the procedural safeguard of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments? [read post]
22 May 2008, 2:51 pm
Guimond rejected the challenge, and on May 21, a three-judge panel of the state's Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling in Martinez v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Cox, No. 07-1103 In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated… [read post]
4 May 2008, 10:52 pm
Martinez, No. 1:04-CV-0927 (NPM), 2007 WL 4618524, at *4 (N.D.N.Y Dec. 27, 2007) (citing Rubin v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 1:17 am
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUITCriminal PracticeAppeal Waiver in Plea Agreement Valid, Enforceable; 'Jacobson' Objection InapplicableUnited States v. [read post]