Search for: "State v. Romero"
Results 241 - 260
of 289
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2009, 6:51 am
USA v Romero-Padilla. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 10:16 pm
Arizona., Romero v Ryan. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n.16 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying Iowa law); Romero v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n.16 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying Iowa law); Romero v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n.16 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying Iowa law); Romero v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n.16 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying Iowa law); Romero v. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 8:07 am
Nancy Welsh (nxw10@DSL.PSU.EDU) of Penn State, Dickinson School of Law has announced the following conference:On Friday, March 26, 2010, Penn State will hold a symposium addressingthe Supreme Court's recent decision in Ashcroft v. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 12:06 pm
The Court order in Schwarzenegger, et al., v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 11:33 am
Cir. 2007): Gamco alleged infringement by Multimedia’s central determinant system, as operated in the New York State Lottery. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 8:40 am
Safford Unified School District #1 v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 6:18 am
Romero, 78 NY2d 355 [1991].) [read post]
14 May 2009, 9:05 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 5:32 am
See United States v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 12:20 am
Romero and Karen Denise Bradley. 34 University of Dayton Law Review 1-46 (2008). [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 11:00 am
" State v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 8:55 pm
Here is an abstract: In 1972, the United States Supreme Court in Spencer v. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 9:14 pm
There were some interesting summary orders this week.In United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 11:35 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 11:09 am
The alleged fraud's case of characters included the following participants according to law enforcement: Joel V., 30, (Defendant 3). [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
