Search for: "Padilla v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 724
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2014, 5:15 am
United States). [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 3:12 pm
Citing the case of United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2014, 3:09 pm
Teague (1989) and People v. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 2:59 pm
Prior to Padilla v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 3:24 pm
In the meantime, on 30 June 2010 the defendant through his newly retained counsel, AF filed a Criminal Procedure Law 440 motion (1) praying the Court for retroactive application to his case of a recent United States Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 8:04 pm
In immigration related matters, the controlling case is Padilla v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 5:14 am
KJ Related articles Rosenberg on Padilla v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 9:13 am
Washington and Padilla v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
In Padilla v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 2:07 pm
Supreme Court ruled in the Padilla v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 1:29 pm
The New York Times reports that Court of Appeals of the state of New York, building on teh Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 12:42 pm
With that symbolic opener out of the way, the Court on Tuesday reversed its new surrogate Ninth, the Sixth Circuit in Burt v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 1:12 pm
The defendant relied on the case of Padilla v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:45 pm
”Bob” DeSousa, State Director for U.S. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:12 am
Soon after Padilla in 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 3:49 am
’ United States v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 3:52 pm
It is his contention that his attorney failed to properly advise him about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty as required by Padilla v Kentucky. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 2:42 pm
Defendant cites the recent United States Supreme Court decision of Jose Padilla v Kentucky, 130 S. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 12:45 pm
This is the requirement of the Padilla v. [read post]