Search for: "Florida Board Of Bar Examiners Re: Amendments To Rules Of The Supreme Court Relating To Admissions To The Bar"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2015, 1:56 pm
” Implied in this grant of authority is the power to set minimum requirements for the admission to practice law, see In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 353 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1977), as well as minimum requirements for certain kinds of specialized legal work. [read post]
25 May 2015, 1:56 pm
” Implied in this grant of authority is the power to set minimum requirements for the admission to practice law, see In re Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 353 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1977), as well as minimum requirements for certain kinds of specialized legal work. [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 6:16 am
IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA PROBATE RULES -- GUARDIANSHIP. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
The examination process was alleged to have been solely based on the testimony of the putative inventor. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Epps, No. 0860652 In an Eight Amendment challenge to lethal injection as the method of execution for two death-row inmates, rulings that the applicable statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' section 1983 action and grant of summary judgment to defendant are affirmed where: 1) under Wilson v. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 7:37 am
While Justice Robinson is careful to explain that the testimony might not be barred under all circumstances, she can’t say its admission here was harmless. [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 1:50 pm
Supreme Court, January 07, 2008 Arave v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 1:07 pm
” The court: “Based on her admission, I’ll adjudicate her delinquent. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 11:18 am
This requirement was aimed at chilling the efforts of itinerant, out-of-state screening physicians, whose conduct came under scrutiny in In re Silica.[11] Daubert, Its Progeny, and Amended Rule of Evidence 702 The Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert was not only a watershed in the analysis of expert evidence generally but also reflected specific concerns about expert testimony in the area of product liability litigation. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Moore, No. 07-3434 Denial of an application for habeas corpus from a conviction and sentence for gross sexual imposition and rape is affirmed where petitioner's Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy was not violated because the requisite high degree of necessity existed for a mistrial. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:41 am
The Supreme Court of Florida has set forth the standard of review for a Petition for Writ of Certiorari such as the one before this Court. [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:58 pm
Supreme Court, voting 5-4 along ideological lines, has ruled that strip-searches of people arrested for minor offenses does not violate the Fourth Amendment principle against unreasonable searches and seizures. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
Van Arsdall, by limiting her cross-examination of a witness. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm
It found (contrary to the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Walker v. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mastromatteo, No. 06-2349 Denial of defendant's motion for a Franks hearing and his sentence for drug-related offenses are affirmed where: 1) defendant's failure to obtain a written conditional plea was not a jurisdictional bar to the circuit court's hearing the appeal; 2) the district court did not err in holding that defendant lacked standing to contest a search of [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Mukasey, No. 06-30361 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(6), as construed by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Because the government moved to vacate defendant's sentence well beyond the 7-day period provided for in Rule 35, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion or vacate the sentence. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 8:08 am
Vonner, No. 05-5295 "A sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) district courts may, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, find sentencing facts in applying the now-advisory sentencing guidelines; 2) defendant forfeited an argument that the district court failed adequately to explain its rejection of his arguments for leniency and could not show plain error; and 3) his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
Walker, No. 060618 In a conviction for robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon, grant of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) Appellate Division's ruling that there was no right of defendant to cross-examine on racial bias because it represented "general ill will" rather than "specific hostility towards defendant" constituted an unreasonable application of the Confrontation Clause; and 2) the error was not harmless. [read post]
