Search for: "Wright v. Department of Correction" Results 81 - 100 of 164
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Nov 2015, 6:07 am
  So it agreed to decide whether the Court of Appeals reached the correct conclusion. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 9:15 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 75125 (SD IL, June 10, 2015), an Illinois federal district court permitted an inmate who had changed his faith from Hebrew Israelite to Orthodox Jewish to move ahead with his complaint that he was being denied use of tefillin because the Department of Corrections contracted rabbi refused to instruct him in their use since he did not consider him Jewish.In Wright v. [read post]
26 Apr 2015, 7:38 am by Howard Friedman
Colorado Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am by Bill Marler
Additionally, the receipt of this warning letter and any action taken to correct the violations cited in it do not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution by the United States Department of Justice[15]. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm by Bill Marler
Additionally, the receipt of this warning letter and any action taken to correct the violations cited in it do not preclude a subsequent criminal prosecution by the United States Department of Justice[15]. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 12:25 pm
Appellant Zamora's case was remanded for resentencing because the trial court did not discuss the calculation of the sentencing guidelines nor did it provide an explanation for departing above the guidelines. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 3:04 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Up to $8000 per work—the statute says up to $150,000, but a jury has awarded that in Capitol Records v. [read post]
So the Ninth Circuit was correct to carefully examine Windsor to assess the level of tension between it and Witt. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 5:56 am by Rachel, Law Clerk
Wright – Treatment of Severance Payments under Family Law. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Let me proceed on the view (whether or not I have convinced everyone that this view is correct) that the NBNP bill violates the plain terms of the 27th Amendment. [read post]