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 “Marquez v. Gomez”
Marquez Ex Rel. Estate of Marquez v. Gomezpublic domain
866 P.2d 354 (1993) 116 N.M.App. 626 Ramon MARQUEZ and Viola Marquez, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Ronald Joseph Marquez, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Luis GOMEZ and Mrs. Luis Gomez, his wife, Individually and as Next Friends of Felipe Gomez, their son, Felipe Gomez, Rudy Gonzales and Little League Baseball, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 11049.
Marquez Ex Rel. Estate of Marquez v. Gomezpublic domain
801 P.2d 84 (1990) 111 N.M. 14 Ramon MARQUEZ and Viola Marquez, Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Ronald Joseph Marquez, Deceased, Petitioners, v. Luis GOMEZ and Mrs. Luis Gomez, his wife, Individually and as next friends of Felipe Gomez, their son Felipe Gomez, Rudy Gonzales and Little League Baseball, Inc., Respondents. No. 19392. Supreme Court of N
Marquez-Gomez v. United Statespublic domain
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States v. Marquez-Gomezpublic domain
PER CURIAM: * Relying on Blakely v. Washington, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Oscar Luis Marquez-Gomez argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence based on facts that were neither admitted nor found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief because the issue is foreclosed in
Marquez-Gomez v. United Statespublic domain
543 U.S. 1113 MARQUEZ-GOMEZv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-7289. Supreme Court of United States. January 24, 2005. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 105 Fed. Appx. 626; Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and
*543 Justice Boyd, delivered the opinion of the Court. This Court has previously addressed, and is even now considering, a well-known series of constitutional challenges to the way Texas funds its public schools. 1 ' In each
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS SONIA HERRERA MARQUEZ, § CLAUDIA GARCIA, AND ALICIA No. 08-13-00092-CV GOMEZ, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF § THEIR MINOR CHILDREN, Appeal from the § Appe
FILED 14-0903 6/8/2015 2:47:08 PM tex-5585819 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK No. 14-0903
OPINION ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice. On behalf of their minor children, Appellants, Sonia Herrera Marquez, Claudia Garcia, and Alicia Gomez, (Parents) filed suit against Appellee, Clint Independent School District, alleging violations of the Texas Constitution and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Parents appeal from the tri
United States v. Marquez-Lermapublic domain
MEMORANDUM ** Defendants Libia Marquez-Lerma (“Marquez-Lerma”), Ibis Zamudio-Gomez (“Zamudio-Gomez”), Alejandro Sequieros-Garcia (“Sequieros-Gareia”), and John Fasching (“Fasching”) in these consolidated appeals were convicted of several counts of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Subs
David Marquez Cruz v. Merrick Garlandpublic domain
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1676 Doc: 52 Filed: 05/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 14 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1676 DAVID ORLANDO MARQUEZ CRUZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for
State v. Marquezpublic domain
New Mexico Office of the Director Compilation '00'07- 11:12:21 2023.12.08 Commission IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2023-NMSC-029 Filing Date: October 12, 2023 No. S-1-SC-385
Kiara Marquez v. Atlanta Restaurant Partners, LLCpublic domain
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 1, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-1344 Lower Tribunal No. 19-2734 ________________ Kiara Marquez, Appellant,
People v. Gomezpublic domain
LIU, J. *250 Defendant Ruben Perez Gomez was sentenced to death in 2000 for the first degree murders of Rajendra Patel and Raul Luna, Jr. He was also sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the double murder of Robert Acosta and Robert Dunton. This appeal is automat
United States v. Munera-Gomezpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1473 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JESUS ARLEY MUNERA-GOMEZ, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Gomez v. American Garment Finishers Corp.public domain
*581 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BRIONES, District Judge. On this day, the Court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, filed in the above-captioned cause on November 3, 1999. Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion on November 24, 1999. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ Motion s
The State of Texas v. Pablo Jose Javier Marquezpublic domain
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00887-CR The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Pablo Jose Javier MARQUEZ,
Gomez, Gilbertopublic domain
_ __ CA¢/S'éj' /{/0’ DB'/ff2 C`/_€ 83 MMK 03 0”7§”. i//zz'//§ ' - 70 Fé§,¢/,,.¢ 5 /;105'057 ‘ - . . ' . '\ ./y/L»}”/'" é/.;/.j/ /J ;_/y,z»' dé"”~~,/,///»K//»¢,q,"“. ;>;¢»__/ 4 d t /70 301 /9/3?§,_ b v v ` \ /..)' 010 ,'¢'¢Y~'~W)v ‘/,:;/;r 12 _ ~ 1 ,-2:“/¢»__,§-,.;¢,/5€,.\.,>»¢ ,_'3;; l »-0'7@§@ 207 ,/!.'//”//?,# . /,¢.~?;// w;»;;;;“" '; //f/-.~_f -.» /) f ‘»` ,A jfny,/M /~'Av/ _»;;,"`//»¢L_»';'»»'/" ~/:" 1532er /‘B/.
United States v. Gomez-Arzatepublic domain
FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 2, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE T
Gomez v. Commissioner of Correctionpublic domain
*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr