Search for: "Oregon v. Ramos" Results 61 - 78 of 78
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2019, 5:14 pm by Gerard Magliocca
Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ramos v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 7:56 am by Eugene Volokh
In 1972, a 4-1-4 Supreme Court decision said "yes" in federal cases, no in state cases; the Supreme Court will now reconsider it.The case is Ramos v. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 7:53 am by Wolfgang Demino
Also see ---> Private student loan collection suit not removable to federal court (addressing state vs. federal jurisdiction issue in context of original collection suit; sanctions imposed for improper removal in Richards v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm by ligitsec
Ramos, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, New York, for plaintiffs-appellees. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 1:23 pm by Matthew D. Kaplan
As the Statesman-Journal reports, a 2015 Oregon Appeals Court ruling (State v Rabanales-Ramos – 273 Or App 228 (2015)) took a narrow view of the Oregon distracted driving law (ORS 811.507), essentially creating a loophole for all forms of distracted driving other than talking on the phone or texting. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 1:23 pm by Matthew D. Kaplan
As the Statesman-Journal reports, a 2015 Oregon Appeals Court ruling (State v Rabanales-Ramos – 273 Or App 228 (2015)) took a narrow view of the Oregon distracted driving law (ORS 811.507), essentially creating a loophole for all forms of distracted driving other than talking on the phone or texting. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm by The Blog Team
Jun. 22, 2016) (Armed Career Criminal Act) Is Oregon burglary a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Aug 2015, 6:03 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” The appellate court added that “other courts interpreting identical insured v. insured exclusions have reached the same conclusion. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 5:11 pm by Jimmy Verner
Ramos, No. 64 A.D. 657, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2009 WL 2032366 (N.Y. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 12:36 pm
Opinion below (9th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner's reply brief Brief amicus curiae of Oregon et al. [read post]