Search for: "Cain v. State Bar"
Results 81 - 100
of 103
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2012, 7:12 am
Cain to give the petitioner a new trial. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 8:00 am
bit.ly/xdDzP6 (TJ Thurston) “Fear” is Not An Objection to Search Terms - bit.ly/AkZd6h (Josh Gilliland) For Thompson & Knight, EDD Apps Are the Future of Litigation Support - bit.ly/wP7zzG (Danny Thankachan) Havana Bar Brawl? [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 11:51 am
As the report relates, “prosecutors have rarely been subjected to disciplinary action by state bar authorities,” even though “state bar disciplinary procedures stand as one of the few – and perhaps the only – means of holding prosecutors accountable for gross misconduct. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 6:42 am
Today, the Court will hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:28 pm
Faragher v. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 9:21 pm
Cain (docket 10-8145). [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 1:35 pm
Cain contains all briefing. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 7:45 am
Cain, 10-8145. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 6:29 am
Yesterday the American Bar Association filed an amicus brief in Smith v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 7:49 am
The Florida Supreme Court ruling in Valle v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 1:15 pm
Clinton (10-699) — political question as bar to test of State Department policy on recording foreign birth of citizen (question added by Court on Congress’s power to dictate policy on the issue) Kawashima v. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 5:13 am
(The claimant had relied on the requirements in Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167 at [19]). [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 6:02 am
v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 8:17 am
Turner v. [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 10:20 am
The stone-cold coolest was by Sah/Loewenstein/Cain, and presented by SOM’s Daylian Cain. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:06 am
: how the case of Boy Scouts of America v. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 12:25 am
In Cain v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
Cain, No. 07-30709 In a collateral proceeding in a murder case, grant of habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) petitioner adequately exhausted his claims in state court; 2) the admission of hearsay testimony at his trial was erroneous; and 3) the state court's holding that the error was harmless was contrary to, and an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 11:14 am
Cain, 2008 WL 4186883 (E.D.La. [read post]
