Search for: "Disciplinary Counsel v. Thompson" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2010, 8:53 pm by cdw
LEXIS 975 (Ohio App 9th 3/24/2010)  Postconviction relief denied on appeal on issues relating to failure to permit discovery, funding experts, ineffective assistance of counsel (trial court chose wrong standard to examine claims, failure to investigate and present, use of experts (cultural, DNA & neurological), as well as “lead counsel’s substance abuse, disciplinary investigation, and, ultimately, his arrest”) Ruben Gutierrez v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 6:00 am by Administrator
Author: Micah Rankin is an Assistant Professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 8:13 am
This year, the Supreme Court of Canada will likely decide Canadian National Railway v McKercher LLP. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 2:33 pm
Plaintiffs' counsel objected, apparently based on the in limine order and the court sustained the objection, instructing the jury to ignore defense counsel's statement. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 3:48 am by Russ Bensing
  Fool me twice; when Dunn showed up for a meeting with his probation officer, Elum asked the officer to take Dunn into the courtroom, where, according to the opinion in Disciplinary Counsel v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 1:30 pm by Kirk Jenkins
Thompson arose from a collision between the plaintiffs’ vehicle and an ambulance owned by a public hospital district. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 8:47 am by Eugene Volokh
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985) (same); Holloman v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm by Eugene Volokh
Ferber (1982) ("we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected rights"); Thompson v. [read post]
15 Sep 2008, 8:29 pm
Robinson, No. 08-10424 In a case involving the retroactive application of an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines applying a two-level reduction for all crack offenses, defendant's request for counsel to represent him in his appeal of a motion for reconsideration of an order resentencing defendant without allowing him an attorney is granted where the interests of justice required that counsel be appointed to address the issues to be raised on appeal. . [read post]