Search for: "United States v. Hernandez"
Results 541 - 560
of 620
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm
United States DOL, et al. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:54 am
(See United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 11:45 am
Tompkins‟ case comports with the United States and Florida Constitutions. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 12:30 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 6:23 am
As the court in Casey v. [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 5:34 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
Supreme Court, October 14, 2008 Moore v. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 10:40 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 12:38 pm
First, by the Application of the Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the United States Constitution (U.S.C.A. [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 6:20 pm
Tauil-Hernandez, 88 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 11:40 am
" United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011 In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to… [read post]
7 Sep 2008, 5:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
Hernandez, No. 07-1828 In a matter of first impression concerning the application of section 4A1.1(d) of the federal sentencing guideline, sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin is affirmed where: 1) defendant "committed the instant offense while under a[] criminal justice sentence"; and 2) the district court appropriately elevated his criminal history score by two points on that account. [read post]
1 Sep 2008, 2:22 pm
Grissom v. [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]
21 Aug 2008, 2:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 1:50 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: The end of William Patry’s blog: (Patry Copyright Blog), (Excess Copyright), (Patently-O), (Chicago IP Litigation Blog), (Michael Geist), (The Fire of Genius), (Techdirt), (Patry Copyright Blog), Kitchin J clarifies scope of biotech patents, in particular gene sequence patents: Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences:… [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 4:43 pm
See United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
When the United States Supreme Court addressed this problem with regard to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. [read post]
