Search for: "State v. Cuevas"
Results 1 - 20
of 60
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Recently, in Cuevas v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 8:55 pm
The divided Supreme Court decision in United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2007, 8:30 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:15 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 5:39 am
Cuevas v. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 11:00 am
(Hint: The answer ain’t stacked misdemeanors).United States v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 2:01 pm
Not in the case of Cuevas v. [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 12:32 pm
The state had previously filed a compliant brief that covered many of the same points, but we ordered replacement briefs in light of Daire v. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 4:46 am
See Cuevas v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 9:46 am
By Brian Murphy and Jonathan Sokolowski On May 29, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Cuevas v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 11:41 am
(Orin Kerr) Today the Seventh Circuit handed down a fascinating set of opinions on the Fourth Amendment implications of long-term GPS monitoring: United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:54 am
Interpreting contract language Local 589 v Cuevas, 271 AD2d 535 Using clear and unambiguous language in a collective bargaining agreement makes it easier for a court to resolve the meaning of a Taylor Law contract provision. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 8:52 am
In Cuevas v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 9:30 pm
Jones, Hughes v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 12:40 am
Yes, it may, as the Cuevas decision by the Appellate Division illustrates.Naptale Cuevas, a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide employed by a State agency, was found guilty of abusing and threatening his supervisor with physical harm. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 4:23 am
State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 9:03 am
In her concurrence last term in United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:06 pm
Grant v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 11:53 am
Cuevas v. [read post]
16 Mar 2008, 5:02 am
Editor: Compare United States v Cuevas, 496 F3d 256 (2nd Cir. 2007), in which the Appeallate court did not find that the US was limited by the defendant's extradition from the Dominican Republic, because there was insufficient evidence that the US had agreed to a sentencing cap. [read post]
