Search for: "Sanchez v. State Bar" Results 141 - 160 of 177
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jun 2010, 4:29 pm by David Lat
” The focus of his speech was United States v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 6:30 pm
The treaty at issue is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, assuring such contact with a consular officer.. . .The state court, saying it was bound by the Sanchez-Llamas decision, concluded that Medellin could not rely on the World Court decision to set aside a state law that barred his Vienna Convention claim because he had failed to raise it at his trial. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 12:22 pm by Rory Little
The court has long recognized (in United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 9:00 am by Joy Waltemath
While in hindsight a party might realize that a deal “was unfair or a bad bargain,” that, alone, was not enough to show unconscionability (Sanchez v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 5:04 pm
  In one case widely seen as destined for the Supreme Court - United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2023, 6:02 am by Richard Hunt
§2283, which bars federal courts from interfering in state court proceeds except in a few limited situations. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 7:06 pm by Dorothy
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 5th District.Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Mandatory minimum -- Armed Career Criminal Act -- Predicate convictions -- Prior felony possession of short-barreled shotgun was not violent felony under ACCA -- District court properly declined to sentence defendant under ACCAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
  In the case at bar, plaintiffs dispute that NYCTA is in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Note, however, that this figure does not include class action suits filed in state court or state court derivative suits, including those in the Delaware Court of Chancery. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Cox, No. 07-1103 In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated… [read post]