⚖ 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 “Smith v. Godinez”

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007-02-02 · Published · cited 21× · 474 F.3d 1039; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2279; 2007 WL 286477
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Ramon Gomez Godinez pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a public playground. The district court 1 sentenced him within the advisory guideline range to 252 months. On appeal Gomez
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005-04-19 · Published · cited 0× · 126 F. App'x 928
PER CURIAM. Jorge Alberto Godinez-Santos appeals his fifty-seven-month sentence for being found unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Godinez-Santos argues that the district court violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as set out in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi
State v. Godinezpublic domain
New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2021-12-01 · Published · cited 2× · 511 P.3d 369; 2022 NMCA 029
Office of the Director New Mexico 08:19:38 2022.06.13 Compilation '00'06- Commission IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2022-NMCA-029 Filing Date: December 1, 2021 No. A-1-CA-38063 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee
Harms v. Godinezpublic domain
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1993-07-29 · Published · cited 18× · 829 F. Supp. 259; 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10535; 1993 WL 300453
829 F.Supp. 259 (1993) Michael HARMS, Plaintiff, v. Salvador GODINEZ, Theopolis Smith, Candis Crook, and Jane Doe, Defendants. No. 92 C 3168. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. July 29, 1993. *260 Michael Harms, pro se. Kathy D. Twine, Cynthia Y. Brim, Cara LeFevour Smith, Illinois Atty. General's Office, Ch
Housley v. Godinezpublic domain
California Court of Appeal · 1992-03-13 · Published · cited 8× · 4 Cal. App. 4th 737; 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 111; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2259; 92 Daily Journal DAR 3534; 1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 316
4 Cal.App.4th 737 (1992) 6 Cal. Rptr.2d 111 JERALD B. HOUSLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANIEL A. GODINEZ et al., Defendants and Respondents. Docket No. F014170. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District. March 13, 1992. *739 COUNSEL Ralph C. Smith for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aron &a;
Hawaii Supreme Court · 2020-10-08 · Published · cited 36× · 148 Haw. 323; 474 P.3d 264
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 08-OCT-2020 07:47 AM IN THE SUPREME
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024-01-03 · Published · cited 8× · 89 F.4th 1205
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50031 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-03506- v. BGS-DMS-1 MARIO GONZALEZ-GODINEZ, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from t
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2021-08-04 · Published · cited 38× · 7 F.4th 628
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19‐3425 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff‐Appellee, v. ERNESTO GODINEZ, Defendant‐Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Holmes v. Godinezpublic domain
District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015-10-08 · Published · cited 35× · 311 F.R.D. 177; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137388; 2015 WL 5920750
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge Plaintiffs, eleven deaf or hard of hearing prisoners, brought this proposed class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Defendant Salvador A. Godinez, the Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC” or the “Department”). Plaintiffs allege that IDOC has denied them hearing accommodat
Evans v. Godinezpublic domain
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2014-12-03 · Published · cited 3× · 2014 IL App (4th) 130686
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Evans v. Godinez, 2014 IL App (4th) 130686 Appellate Court WILLIAM EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.A. GODINEZ, KEITH Caption ANGLIN, and LAMAR COLEMAN, Defendants-Appellees. District & No. Fourth District Docket No. 4-13-0686 Rule 23 Order filed June 18, 2014 Rule 23 Order with
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997-05-20 · Published · cited 343× · 114 F.3d 640; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11833; 1997 WL 269152
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Anthony Dixon, a state prisoner, sued several officials at Stateville Correctional Center, claiming that the conditions of his confinement in the prison’s protective custody wing violated the Eighth Amendment. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dixon claimed that his cell became so cold each winter that ice formed on the walls and he could see his breath, while inadequate v
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2017-06-12 · Published · cited 196× · 860 F.3d 434; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10884
PER CURIAM. James Owens, an Illinois state prisoner, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *436 because he believes that nearly two dozen prison employees deliberately ignored his medical needs and retaliated against him for filing grievances and lawsuits. He is primarily dissatisfied with the ad
Godinez v. Statepublic domain
District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985-12-10 · Published · cited 0× · 480 So. 2d 137; 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17231
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Blount v. State, 67 So.2d 209 (Fla.1953); Gardner v. State, 54 So.2d 31 (Fla.1951); Scholl v. State, 94 Fla. 1138, 115 So. 43 (1927); Delagado v. State, 361 So.2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); McLaughlin v. State, 286 So.2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Hoban v. Godinezpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012-11-06 · Published · cited 2× · 502 F. App'x 574
ORDER Joseph Hoban, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We conclude that Hoban states a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a claim of failure to protect him from a substantial risk of serious injury, and a claim of retaliation. *576Thus, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015-01-23 · Published · cited 32× · 777 F.3d 410; 2015 WL 294383; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1060
WOOD, Chief Judge. Joseph Sorrentino and Labron C. Neal are inmates at Illinois’s Stateville Correctional Center. They purchased several items from Stateville’s commissary, but the prison later forbade inmates to possess those items in their cells. Sorrentino and Neal were among those whose property was removed, as the new rule required. They responded by filing a proposed class
California Court of Appeal · 2005-08-24 · Published · cited 2× · 132 Cal. App. 4th 73; 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 270; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7695; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 10380; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1338
*77Opinion KLEIN, P. J. Defendants and appellants State of California, the State Allocation Board (Board) and its member Ron Joseph, the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and its executive officer, Luisa M. Park, Tom Campbell as Director of Finance, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor, Philip Angelides as State Treasurer and Steve Westly as State Co
State v. Godinezpublic domain
Nebraska Supreme Court · 1973-03-30 · Published · cited 6× · 205 N.W.2d 644; 190 Neb. 1; 1973 Neb. LEXIS 620
205 N.W.2d 644 (1973) 190 Neb. 1 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Jessie GODINEZ, Appellant. No. 38537. Supreme Court of Nebraska. March 30, 1973. Bertrand V. Tibbels, Scottsbluff, for appellant. Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Betsy G. Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee. Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOS
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991-01-30 · Published · cited 10× · 922 F.2d 752; 13 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 1142; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1211; 1991 WL 2194
JOHN W. PECK, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants appeal from their jury convictions for falsely classifying imported goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 541 and making false statements in connection with imported goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For the reasons stated below, we affirm these convictions. FACTS Appellant Godinez
Appellate Court of Illinois · 2004-08-20 · Published · cited 8× · 815 N.E.2d 822; 352 Ill. App. 3d 87; 287 Ill. Dec. 178; 2004 Ill. App. LEXIS 977
815 N.E.2d 822 (2004) 352 Ill. App.3d 87 287 Ill.Dec. 178 Julio GODINEZ and Carlos Godinez, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. June E. SULLIVAN-LACKEY, Defendant-Appellant (The City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, Defendant-Appellant). No. 1-02-2101. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division. August 20, 2004.
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · 2003-08-29 · Published · cited 0×
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00446-CR The State of Texas, Appellant v. Angie Godinez, Appellee