Search for: "People v. Garcia (1983)"
Results 1 - 20
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2007, 8:09 am
People v. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 7:18 am
People v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 6:33 am
People v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 1:16 pm
Herrera-Garcia v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 3:36 pm
The Ninth Circuit in Mendez v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 8:21 pm
People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780,783 (1992); People v Thompson, 91 AD2d 672 (2nd Dept. 1982), modified 60 NY2d 513 (1983); People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 (2nd Dept. 1982). [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 3:03 pm
GARCIA, et al., Intervenor Defendants. 11th Circuit. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 9:09 am
Garcia, 905 F.2d 557, 559 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 986, 111 S.Ct. 522, 112 L.Ed.2d 533 (1990); United States v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 9:01 pm
See People v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003)) or the Sixth Circuit (Garcia v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
§1983 (“section 1983”),[4] and, for that matter, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “state action” requirement.[5] The Court framed the issue before it as a choice between two competing standards. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
” At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod unpacks the implications for Section 1983 civil-rights suits of Timbs v. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 9:30 am
Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), (warrantless use of a beeper device inside a chloroform container to track the movements of a suspected drug manufacturer was proper. [read post]
22 May 2018, 11:13 am
See Garcia-Dimaya v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
(UAW) v Yard-Man, Inc. (716 F2d 1476 [6th Cir 1983], cert denied 465 US 1007 [1984]) and its progeny. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
(UAW) v Yard-Man, Inc. (716 F2d 1476 [6th Cir 1983], cert denied 465 US 1007 [1984]) and its progeny. [read post]
27 Aug 2007, 3:00 am
Garcia-Lara
• Williams v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Garcia, the statute of limitations apply with equal force to section 1983 method-of-execution action; 2) the limitations period begins to accrue on the date direct review of a plaintiff's conviction and sentence is complete; 3) the district court correctly found that the statute of limitations has run for each of the three remaining plaintiffs; and 4) there was no reason to hold that the statute of limitations has been tolled. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 3:45 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, November 05, 2008 US v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Ramos v. [read post]
