Search for: "Hinojosa v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 62
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2023, 10:19 pm
Grey v. [read post]
11 Mar 2023, 3:21 am
MexicoPetitioner v. [read post]
4 Mar 2023, 3:05 am
HINOJOSA: Yes, Your Honor. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 10:23 am
This case, McKnight v. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 6:01 am
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 4:44 pm
” Brown v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 12:00 am
Almerico. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 3:44 pm
And though State Sen. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 2:35 pm
In relevant part, the fee agreement's arbitration clause states: XVII. [read post]
16 Feb 2019, 8:05 am
Under Brady v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 8:27 am
Conference Activity 14:00-15:15 Opening remarks - Luis Hinojosa (Granada), Michael Karayanni (Hebrew), Yuval Shany (Hebrew) Keynote Speaker – Basak Cali (Koc/Berlin) 15:30-17:00 Panel I – International Adjudication in Times of Backlash Chair – Luis Hinojosa (Granada) Henry Lovat (Glasgow) - International Tribunal Backlash: A Pluralist Approach Johannes Hendrik Fahner (Luxembourg) - International Judicial Deference as Response to Backlash … [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 12:56 pm
., v. [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 4:07 pm
State Rep. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 10:07 am
With SB 783, State Sen. [read post]
20 May 2016, 9:08 am
Hinojosa, 15-883, gets that honor this week after four relists. [read post]
17 May 2016, 12:57 pm
” See Kernan v. [read post]
11 May 2016, 1:16 pm
Moore v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 5:20 am
Hinojosa 15-833Issue: (1) Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s presumption that a state decision rejecting a claim is a ruling on the merits can be rebutted by looking through to an earlier state ruling which applied a procedural bar that, under state law, could not be the basis for the later decision; and (2) whether, if so, a change in state law reducing a prisoner’s ability to earn future good-time credits based on… [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 5:21 am
Hinojosa 15-833Issue: (1) Whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s presumption that a state decision rejecting a claim is a ruling on the merits can be rebutted by looking through to an earlier state ruling which applied a procedural bar that, under state law, could not be the basis for the later decision; and (2) whether, if so, a change in state law reducing a prisoner’s ability to earn future good-time credits based on… [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 5:00 pm
Moore v. [read post]
