Search for: "State v. Fernandez"
Results 181 - 200
of 523
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2007, 1:11 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 12:07 pm
A panel of the Ninth Circuit in Miranda B. adopted a particular standard on this issue by quoting from a purported en banc opinion written by Chief Judge Kozinski, with a citation to "United States v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:43 am
Fernandez Marques, Pfizer Gmbh (Germany) Christopher Hanes, GlaxoSmithKline (United States) Branding clinical trials: benefits in making the physician like the drug/recall it later. [read post]
5 May 2012, 8:13 am
See Fernandez v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 2:32 pm
But, for present purposes, figuring out how the status of the Holy See interrelates with the complex sovereign immunity provisions of FSIA (particularly in the context of child sexual abuse allegations) is fascinating.As this opinion by Judge Berzon (and concurrence by Judge Fernandez) amply reveals. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 4:32 am
State v. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 12:11 pm
The outcome hinged on the Ninth’s lead use immunity case, United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 10:04 am
On April 25th, he notified the State Elections Department that he was once again re-designating back into County Court Group 29.Group 31Judge Christopher Green v. [read post]
20 Oct 2022, 11:34 am
From Rosen v. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 4:41 am
Fernandez v. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 4:45 am
At the moment the range of tests for persecution on return is dizzyingly confusing: Refugee Convention – a reasonable degree of likelihood for f (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Sivakumaran [1988] AC 958) Article 3 ECHR -”substantial grounds” (Vilvarajah v UK (1991) 14 EHRR 248) Extradition – balance of probabilities for past and existing facts (Fernandez v Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987) Extradition… [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 6:20 pm
See United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 4:36 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 9:07 am
The 9th agreed (Fernandez joined by N. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 1:18 pm
See United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:27 pm
No, holds the 9th, because the state of the law at the time the state court decided the case was Oregon v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 5:00 am
Judge Fernandez dissented, stating simply that in his view the agreement was not ambiguous, and that the plaintiff’s position was a “palpable evasion” of Stolt-Nielsen. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 1:43 am
"
Fernandez v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 9:34 am
US v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 2:36 pm
Espinosa turned over his check to the Dept. of State on Thursday, in the amount of $5,843.00. [read post]
