Search for: "People v. Rodriguez (1970)"
Results 1 - 20
of 26
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2016, 8:00 am
Rodriguez (1973) – Camille WalshPart III: The Modern EraReflecting and Foreshadowing: Mathews v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 7:45 am
Rodriguez, supra. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 9:26 am
(People v Agee, 57 AD3d 1486, 1487, lv denied 12 NY3d 813; see People v Becoats, 71 AD3d 1578, 1579, affd 17 NY3d 643, cert denied ___ US ___, 132 S Ct 1970; People v Cobb, 72 AD3d 1565, 1565-1566, lv denied 15 NY3d 803). [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:26 am
Ramos v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
Rodriguez, 138 S. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 8:07 am
Cir. 1970). [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 9:43 am
Rodriguez (1973) – Camille Walsh Part III: The Modern Era Reflecting and Foreshadowing: Mathews v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 9:10 am
Rodriguez, marking the last time the 1970s was known to entertain an appearance by a Latina advocate. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 8:40 am
Rodriguez, marking the last time the 1970s was known to entertain an appearance by a Latina advocate. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 8:18 pm
See Whitfield v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 9:01 pm
” As noted above, the Seventh Circuit in Judge v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
Co. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2010, 10:26 am
Rodriguez (1973). [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 7:00 am
In Brown v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Rodriguez, No. 06-20774 Convictions and sentences concerning participation in a single, broad conspiracy to transport many aliens to Houston are affirmed where: 1.) two appellants depended on the aliens' transportation to Houston for their full payment, though they did not intend to take any aliens to Houston themselves; and 2.) third appellant knew that many aliens would be transported by trailer well past Robstown. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 2:13 am
ATTORNEY’S FEES ■Jose Parra, Applicant v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 2:15 pm
We are skeptical that Heckler v. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 12:05 pm
" Rodriguez v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
Court of Appeal’s ruling in R. v. [read post]
