Search for: "Rodriguez v. Miller" Results 81 - 100 of 101
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jun 2009, 3:57 am
Rodriguez, No. 100,626 (March 13, 2009); Alex McCauley; affirming Judge Bornholdt's suppression based on an improper search of a vehicle.State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 1:17 pm
Four granted cases remain unscheduled (Miller, Thomas, Paige, Weston). [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rodriguez, No. 06-2656 Sentencing courts have discretion to consider items such as fast-track disparity in considering requests for variant sentences premised on disagreements with the manner in which the sentencing guidelines operate, however, they are not obligated to deviate from the guidelines based on those items. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 1:29 pm
Our usual batch of news today is complemented by another few posts detailing the outcome of Miller v. [read post]
1 Jan 2008, 4:08 am
Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973)(applying heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sex)Miller v. [read post]
3 Dec 2007, 12:17 am
Graubard Miller et al., defendants-respondents Subscription Required APPELLATE DIVISIONFIRST DEPARTMENTAttorney's Fees 40-Percent Contingent Fee in Late Stages of Estate Litigation Not Unconscionable, Survives Dismissal APPELLATE TERMCriminal Practice CPL §210.05 Not a Bar to Prosecution Of Misdemeanor Cases in Supreme Court People v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 2:10 pm
Miller, 46 M.J. 248, 250 (C.A.A.F. 1997)(quoting United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 1:25 am
Miller, respondent-appellee NEW YORK COUNTY Contracts Former Employee Violated Non-Solicitation Provision; Plaintiff Granted Injunction Bond Street Group LLC v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 1:25 am
Miller, respondent-appellee NEW YORK COUNTY Contracts Former Employee Violated Non-Solicitation Provision; Plaintiff Granted Injunction Bond Street Group LLC v. [read post]
29 Aug 2007, 5:51 am
It has now affirmed the district court's decision denying the petition.The decision in Rodriguez v. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 11:06 pm
For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and the sentence of the district court. 07a0246p.06 2007/06/27 Rodriguez v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 4:47 pm
Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997); Rodriguez de Quijas v. [read post]