⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Mariel Rodriguez”

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2016-08-24 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY No. 08-16-00019-CV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER AT EL § PASO, Appeal from the
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2016-08-24 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY No. 08-16-00019-CV HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER AT EL § PASO, Appeal from the §
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2016-06-16 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH § No. 08-16-00019-CV SCIENCES CENTER AT EL PASO, § Appeal from the Appellant, § County Court
People v. Rodriguezpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023-10-05 · Published · cited 1× · 2023 NY Slip Op 05045
People v Rodriguez (2023 NY Slip Op 05045) People v Rodriguez 2023 NY Slip Op 05045 Decided on October 05, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
People v. Rodriguezpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023-05-02 · Published · cited 1× · 2023 NY Slip Op 02286
People v Rodriguez (2023 NY Slip Op 02286) People v Rodriguez 2023 NY Slip Op 02286 Decided on May 02, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
People v. Rodriguezpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023-10-05 · Published · cited 1× · 2023 NY Slip Op 05045
People v Rodriguez (2023 NY Slip Op 05045) People v Rodriguez 2023 NY Slip Op 05045 Decided on October 05, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
People v. Rodriguezpublic domain
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023-05-02 · Published · cited 1× · 2023 NY Slip Op 02286
People v Rodriguez (2023 NY Slip Op 02286) People v Rodriguez 2023 NY Slip Op 02286 Decided on May 02, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2003-05-07 · Published · cited 46× · 328 F.3d 34
328 F.3d 34 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Illio MATOS, Defendant, Appellant.United States of America, Appellee,v.Carlos Ovalles-Torres, Defendant, Appellant. No. 01-2431. No. 01-2432. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Heard March 3, 2003. Decided May 7, 2003.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019-02-22 · Published · cited 45× · 916 F.3d 885
PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. In this habeas corpus case, Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez challenges his Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and his accompanying sentence of death. The district court denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). We granted a COA, agreeing to hear a number of Cuesta-Rodriguez's claims. Exercising jurisdiction under
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Puerto Rico/Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico · 2025-02-18 · Published · cited 0×
Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES PANEL XI LILIAN RODRÍGUEZ CERTIORARI PÉREZ Procedente del Tribunal de Primera Peticionaria Instancia, Sala Superior de Arecibo v. K
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2019-02-22 · Published · cited 0×
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 22, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR
District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2009-06-09 · Published · cited 1× · 722 F. Supp. 2d 141; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128397; 2009 WL 6640618
722 F.Supp.2d 141 (2009) Rosita ESTERAS, Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN BAUTISTA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil No. 08-1209 (GAG/BJM). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. June 9, 2009. *142 Manuel Duran-Rodriguez, Manuel Duran Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Luis R. Perez-Giusti, Mariel Y. Haack
Board of Immigration Appeals · 1984-07-01 · Published · cited 0× · 19 I. & N. Dec. 136
Interim Decision #2974 MATTER OF LEON OROSCO AND RODRIGUEZ COLAS - - In Exclusion Proceedings A-23215742 A-24790678 • Decided by Board November 30, 1983 Decided by Attorney General July 27, 1984 (1) A motion to reopen exclusion proceedings for the purpose of applying for asylum and
District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2015-03-31 · Published · cited 0× · 98 F. Supp. 3d 388; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46415; 2015 WL 1611835
OPINION AND ORDER PEDRO A. DELGADOHERNÁNDEZ, District Judge. Gisela Vélez-Ramírez provided services under contract at the Bayamón Correctional Complex in Puerto Rico. The contract, however, was not renewed. Vélez then sued the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DOCR”); the Correctional Health Services Corporation (“CHSC”); and the Secretary of the CHSC, under Fe
District Court, S.D. New York · 2013-11-27 · Published · cited 31× · 984 F. Supp. 2d 255; 2013 WL 6196968; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169094
OPINION AND ORDER DENISE COTE, District Judge: Plaintiffs Heather Carpenter (“Carpenter”) and Julio Jose Jimenez-Artunduaga (“Jimenez”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking compensatory and punitive damages against six defendants: the City of New York (“the City”), Chief of Department Joseph J. Esposito (“Chief Esposito”), Chief of Patrol James P. Hall (“Chief Hall”), Sergeant
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2010-10-12 · Published · cited 101× · 2010 OK CR 23; 241 P.3d 214; 2010 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 23; 2010 WL 3990129
*222OPINION A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge. T1 Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez was tried in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2008-3216, and was found guilty of First Degree Murder in violation of 21 0.8. 2001, § 701.7. The jury imposed the death penalty after finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel and that Cuesta-Rodr
District Court, S.D. New York · 1999-02-24 · Published · cited 1× · 53 F. Supp. 2d 587; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1882; 1999 WL 102751
53 F.Supp.2d 587 (1999) Francisco RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Edward J. McELROY, District Director, Ins, Janet Reno, Attorney General, Ins, and any other persons having the Petitioner in custody, Respondents. No. 98 CIV. 7556(RPP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 24, 1999. *588 Francisco Rodriguez, York, PA, p
District Court, D. New Jersey · 2002-12-18 · Published · cited 3× · 237 F. Supp. 2d 543; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24136; 2002 WL 31830684
237 F.Supp.2d 543 (2002) Humberto HERRERO-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Nancy BAILEY, Warden, Respondent. Civil No. 01-4472 (JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. December 18, 2002. *544 Humberto Herrero-Rodriguez, Fort Dix, NJ, Pro se. Christopher Christie, United States Attorney by John Andrew Ruymann, Assistant
Rodriguez v. Statepublic domain
Supreme Court of Florida · 2006-01-19 · Published · cited 118× · 919 So. 2d 1252; 2005 WL 1243475
919 So.2d 1252 (2005) Juan David RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Juan David Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. James V. Crosby, Jr., etc., Respondent. Nos. SC00-99, SC01-2864. Supreme Court of Florida. May 26, 2005. As Revised on Denial of Rehearing January 19, 2006. *1259 Neal A. Dupree,
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2011-09-06 · Published · cited 9× · 460 Mass. 511; 952 N.E.2d 923; 2011 Mass. LEXIS 789
Gants, J. On August 7, 2010, the Legislature enacted and made immediately effective St. 2010, c. 258 (act), which prohibits institutional lenders and certain financial institutions who own foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without just cause. The issue raised in this case is whether the act requires dismissal of a no-cause summary process case that was already pending when the act went into effect, o