Search for: "C Pineda"
Results 61 - 69
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2022, 5:17 pm
Cuban Environmental Law Chair: Jorge Esquirol, FIU College of Law Berta Hernández-Truyol, University of Florida Law School, “The Human Environment” Daimar Cánovas González, University of Havana Law School, “Presente y futuro del derecho ambiental en Cuba” Discussant: Sergio Díaz-Briquets, María Dolores Espino 4:15 pm-4:30 pm COFFEE BREAK … [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm
Spain Spanish businessman Luis Pineda, who was found guilty of sending 57 libellous tweets, has been ordered to send a series of apol [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm
” Pineda v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Pineda, No. 08-41301 The $100 special assessment portion of the district court's order revoking defendant's supervised release for illegal reentry into the U.S. is vacated where the district court erred in reimposing the unpaid assessment from defendant's sentence for a prior offense, because neither 18 U.S.C. section 3013 nor 18 U.S.C. section 3583, which concerned supervised release, sanctioned the imposition of a section 3013 assessment for revocation of a term of… [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Pineda, No. 08-41301 The $100 special assessment portion of the district court's order revoking defendant's supervised release for illegal reentry into the U.S. is vacated where the district court erred in reimposing the unpaid assessment from defendant's sentence for a prior offense, because neither 18 U.S.C. section 3013 nor 18 U.S.C. section 3583, which concerned supervised release, sanctioned the imposition of a section 3013 assessment for revocation of a term of supervised release. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 11:46 am
Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2008 Pineda v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
We’ve made no secret of our distaste for the so called “heeding presumption” – that juries may presume that any alternative “adequate” warning would have been heeded by the plaintiff (or, in prescription medical product cases, the prescriber). [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
App. 2007) (adopting Restatement Third §2(c) regarding warnings; “[a]bsent controlling Arizona law to the contrary, we generally follow the Restatement”); Southwest Pet Products, Inc. v. [read post]
