Search for: "The Florida Bar v. Hawkins"
Results 1 - 19
of 19
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2012, 9:30 pm
Hawkins sought relief through the Florida Supreme Court. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 7:58 am
This follows recent Florida Bar Ethical Opinion 12-1, which finds an unwaivable conflict of interest when defense counsel advises a client about these plea waivers. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Epps, No. 0860652 In an Eight Amendment challenge to lethal injection as the method of execution for two death-row inmates, rulings that the applicable statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' section 1983 action and grant of summary judgment to defendant are affirmed where: 1) under Wilson v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 8:10 am
Hawkins v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 8:10 am
Hawkins v. [read post]
2 Sep 2017, 11:34 am
Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 9:08 am
Hawkins v. [read post]
27 May 2016, 8:00 am
Rounding out this week’s old business is Hawkins v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Emody v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 9:56 am
Hawkins, Jr., Hawk Private Investigations, Inc., Atlanta, and Richard M. [read post]
25 May 2010, 9:56 am
Hawkins, Jr., Hawk Private Investigations, Inc., Atlanta, and Richard M. [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 9:32 am
Florida and Atkins v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 9:47 am
The landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 12:00 pm
Also returning for a fifth time is the petition for rehearing in Hawkins v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
DeGennaro, No. 06-4195 Order holding that retrial of defendants would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and denying motions to bar retrial and dismiss the indictment is reversed where: 1) the decision of the trial court that there was "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial was an abuse of discretion; and 2) a statement by counsel in support of a motion for mistrial, quickly reconsidered, does not preclude the defendant from claiming that the Double Jeopardy Clause… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Hawkins, No. 06-4061 "Conviction and sentence for traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(b), are affirmed over claims that: 1) section 2423(b) is an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Power; and 2) the district court erred in relying upon defendant's plea agreement with the government to deny his motions attacking the constitutionality of section 2423(b) on First Amendment… [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 11:51 am
In an 1838 case, Buddington v. [read post]
