Search for: "People v. Salazar"
Results 101 - 116
of 116
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Oct 2009, 6:23 am
The discussion of Wednesday's argument in Salazar v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 7:37 am
Alas, I've been busy with other things, and haven't paid close attention to the Salazar v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 6:11 am
Cases To Be Argued This Week Joan Biskupic of USA Today writes a very detailed and thorough article on United States v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 10:14 am
Graham, and is the heart of the issue in Salazar v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:48 pm
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in State of Connecticut v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 7:04 pm
FEC and Austin v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 3:48 am
Salazar, No. 08-1097ADEASee issue description at Public CitizenØ SCOTUS docket hereFederal Appellate Court DecisionsØ Paul Mollica's Daily Developments in EEO Law here3rd CircuitØ Donlin v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Salazar, No. 08-1097ADEA - Burdens of proof + bifurcation issueso o SCOTUS docket hereFederal Appellate Court DecisionsØ Ø Paul Mollica's Daily Developments in EEO Law here5th Circuit> Braymiller v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 3:15 pm
Salazar, No. 07-526. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
Salazar, No. 07-40683 Conviction and sentence for witness tampering are affirmed where: 1) conviction was based on sufficient evidence; 2) an objection to the application of a cross-reference to a sentencing guideline was waived; 3) the penalty provisions of the witness-tampering statute were correctly applied; and 4) the proper burden of proof was applied in determining sentence enhancements. . [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 6:42 am
In Goode v. [read post]
26 Jul 2007, 3:45 am
Extremely interesting case from the 11th Circuit today, United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 3:01 am
Salazar U.S. [read post]
23 Aug 2006, 5:59 am
Salazar-Vasquez, 2006 U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2006, 3:50 pm
" Since, under his reading, "Congress intended to make certain people ineligible to file bankruptcy," he found it implausible that Congress "specifically identified people to exclude from the bankruptcy process, yet permitted those same people to benefit from bankruptcy's most powerful protection: the automatic stay. [read post]
18 Apr 2006, 3:50 pm
" Since, under his reading, "Congress intended to make certain people ineligible to file bankruptcy," he found it implausible that Congress "specifically identified people to exclude from the bankruptcy process, yet permitted those same people to benefit from bankruptcy's most powerful protection: the automatic stay. [read post]
