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.
6 opinions for “United States v. Godinez-Arevalo”
United States v. Zuno-Arcepublic domain
25 F.Supp.2d 1087 (1998) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Ruben ZUNO-ARCE, Defendant-Movant. Nos. CV 98-2930-ER, CR 87-422(G)-ER. United States District Court, C.D. California. August 18, 1998. *1088 *1089 *1090 *1091
Ex Parte Carlos Alexander Aguilarpublic domain
OPINION Harvey Brown, Justice Carlos Alexander Aguilar appeals from the denial of his post-conviction application for writ of habeas corpus, complaining that the trial court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his application.; Background Aguilar, who was born in El Salvador, wa
Robert Charles Comer v. Dora B. Schriro, Director, of Arizona Department of Correctionspublic domain
RYMER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: We need to — and may only — decide one question: whether death row inmate Robert Comer is competent to withdraw his appeal from denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and has done so knowingly and voluntarily. All of us agree that the answer to that question is yes, based on what the district court found
Arthur Gilmer Cross Jr. v. the State of Texaspublic domain
Opinion filed January 15, 2026 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-23-00102-CR __________ ARTHUR GILMER CROSS JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 29th District Court Pal
Comer v. Schriropublic domain
Volume 1 of 2 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT CHARLES COMER, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 98-99003 v. DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director, of D.C. No. CV-94-01469-ROS Arizona Department of OPINION Corrections,
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig.public domain
Honorable Thomas M. Durkin, United States District Judge *779Defendants are industrial producers of chicken meat. Plaintiffs are three putative classes of businesses and individuals who purchased chicken from Defendants, either directly or indirectly, for resale, business, or personal use, between 2008 and 2016. Plaintiffs allege that during that time period Defendants