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”
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
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 §
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
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
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
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
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.
United States v. Mariel-Figueroapublic domain
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.
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenterpublic domain
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
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
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Carpenterpublic domain
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 22, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR
Esteras v. San Juan Bautista Medical Center, Inc.public domain
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
LEON-OROSCO AND RODRIGUEZ-COLASpublic domain
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
Velez-Ramirez v. Puerto Ricopublic domain
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
Carpenter v. City of New Yorkpublic domain
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
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Statepublic domain
*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
Rodriguez v. McElroypublic domain
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
Herrero-Rodriguez v. Baileypublic domain
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
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,
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Nunezpublic domain
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