Search for: "Cruz v. Johnson"
Results 1 - 20
of 77
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2013, 5:00 am
The California Supreme Court expanded upon Broughton in Cruz v. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 3:24 pm
To make three, you need not one, not two, but three.Read Justice Elia's complete opinion for more detail if you're unsure about the concept.Some of this advanced mathematics is moot at this point, since after the Court of Appeal issued its OSC, the Appellate Division of the Santa Cruz Superior Court got the message and stopped hearing appeals with two (instead of three) judges. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 1:12 pm
Johnson v. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 11:38 am
Today's MetNews reports on Johnson v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:53 pm
A defendant need not commit an affirmative act directed at a child (see People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 591 [2002]; People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372 [2002]) nor cause actual harm to a child (see Johnson, 95 NY2d at 371; see also People v Duenas, 190 Misc 2d 801 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]) to be guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. [read post]
8 Jan 2017, 10:58 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 1:45 pm
So that's $124,000 -- plus attorney fees on appeal -- down.Not only that, but Justice Johnson also makes fairly clear (without expressly holding) that had O'Melveny filed a cross-appeal of the haircut it took on fees, it almost certainly would have won, since it's impermissible to whack a fee request on the ground that you "knew going in" that it was probably a pro bono case. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:53 pm
A defendant need not commit an affirmative act directed at a child (see People v Hitchcock, 98 NY2d 586, 591 [2002]; People v Johnson, 95 NY2d 368, 371-372 [2002]) nor cause actual harm to a child (see Johnson, 95 NY2d at 371; see also People v Duenas, 190 Misc 2d 801 [App Term, 2d Dept 2002]) to be guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 4:43 am
” At casetext, Carissa Hessick examines the impact on the void-for-vagueness doctrine of the court’s 2015 decision in Johnson v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 6:54 am
Here’s the Thursday morning read: A Chew Toy for Dogs Provokes a Spirited Supreme Court Argument (Adam Liptak, The New York Times) Republican Ted Cruz introduces bill to block US supreme court expansion (Martin Pengelly, The Guardian) How Ginsburg’s death and Kavanaugh’s maneuvering shaped the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 2:11 pm
Gonzalez Johnson v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:07 am
” See Cruz v. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 12:45 pm
” See Cruz v. [read post]
30 Mar 2013, 12:59 pm
Schirer (argue)[Rev/Rmd; Johnson; July 26, 2013]Ineffective assistance of counselMay 2--Thursday--a.m.State v. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 5:00 am
LEXIS 21810, Feb. 2, 2016) and permitted a Native American inmate to move ahead with his free exercise and equal protection challenges to confiscation and desecration of his medicine bag.In Johnson v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 5:00 am
In the case of Cruz v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:35 pm
Booker, Johnson v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 9:30 pm
There is still time to register for the Supreme Court Historical Society's commemoration of Juneteenth, a conversation with Judge Curtis Collier and the Society’s Executive Director, Jim Duff, on the lynching of Ed Johnson in 1906 and the resulting US Supreme Court decisions, United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 8:51 am
Ted Cruz 5/16/22 R 596/1 29 5/02/22 20-1800 Shurtleff v. [read post]
