Search for: "Snyder v. State Bar" Results 121 - 140 of 232
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm by Mary Pat Dwyer
Clark 13-555Issue: Whether a federal court has authority in extraordinary circumstances to bar a state from reprosecuting a defendant when state officials violate a federal habeas order and engage in continuing misconduct that substantially prejudices the defendant’s ability to secure a fair retrial. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Powell bars habeas relief if the state fails to raise Stone in the district court, or whether Stone announced a categorical rule that Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review absent a showing that the state prisoner was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in state court; (2) whether the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in relying on studies that were not part of the… [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 6:54 am by Joy Waltemath
Michigan’s current version of its Fair and Open Competition in Governmental Construction Act (FOCGCA), in which the state made an across-the-board determination not to require contractors on public construction projects not to enter project labor agreements (PLAs) was not preempted by the NLRA, ruled a divided Sixth Circuit (Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council v Snyder, September 6, 2013, Rogers, J). [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 1:55 pm by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
How fitting for Michigan to take this major first step in aligning its practices with the requirements of the United States Constitution during this 50th anniversary year of the Gideon v Wainwright decision, which guaranteed counsel to indigent defendants facing prison time. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:00 am by Will Bland
On February 15, 2012, Judge Brown, on the bench for the United States District Court in New Orleans, issued an interesting opinion in the matter of Snyder v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 2:11 am by Peter Mahler
One tailored to the particular case must be found, and that can be done only after a discriminating consideration of all information bearing upon an enlightened prediction of the future’ ” (Amodio v Amodio, 70 NY2d 5, 7, quoting Snyder’s Estate v United States, 285 F2d 857, 861). [read post]