Search for: "United States v. Teague"
Results 1 - 20
of 142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2013, 2:33 pm
United States, Slip Opinion No.: 11-820, from the 7th Circuit holding that their prior decision in Padilla v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 11:48 am
In United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 6:51 pm
On October 31, the United States Supreme Court will hear argument in Danforth v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:27 pm
§ 2255 asserting that a federal sentence must be corrected due to error under United States v. [read post]
21 May 2007, 3:32 pm
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari today in Danforth v. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 9:28 pm
United States. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 2:17 pm
See, e.g., Colwell v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States, 133 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States , 133 S. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
United States , 133 S. [read post]
2 Nov 2007, 12:01 pm
The Court was asked to consider whether state supreme courts are required to use the standard announced in Teague v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 9:50 am
The Court was asked to consider whether state supreme courts are required to use the standard announced in Teague v. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 1:12 pm
In federal-habeas review and in some states’ post-conviction review processes, this inquiry centers on applying the federal-retroactivity analysis announced in Teague v. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 11:31 am
United States v. [read post]
6 May 2011, 6:43 am
United State, Case No. 08-CR-889-JFA (D.S.C. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 2:21 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 8:40 am
Under Teague v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 9:46 am
See United States v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 2:51 pm
A state can, if it likes, apply a new rule retroactively in its own courts even if the federal rule of Teague v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 9:21 am
Minnesota (06-8273): "Are state supreme courts required to use the standard announced in Teague v. [read post]
