Our team of attorneys has extensive experience representing clients
from every part of Texas. The Salazar Law Firm not only gives personal attention to each client, but we also have the resources and technology to handle all types of cases. Many individuals do not know about their rights when it comes to the law, but we are here to help. For anything from a simple injury case to a highly complex legal issue, we will give you results. Call us today to be informed of your rights and to have your case reviewed.

You can be assured that your case will be seen and handled by each
member of our staff, which allows your case to be known by the whole
firm. This lets us be thorough and enables you to reach out to anyone
on our staff. We make ourselves available at all times, even if that
means answering your call after hours. Ultimately, the Salazar Law
Firm seeks to responsibly deliver quality service to Texans all over.
This means we have staff who can communicate in Spanish, Vietnamese,
and English.

Our office works best in casual attire, saving our suits for court and
client meetings. Working hard need not be dull. United by the desire
to produce the best outcome for our clients, our staff members are a
team of friends in addition to being co-workers. Our employees not
only get the job done, but also pursue hobbies and accomplishments
outside the office. Each person brings something unique to the table.
This kind of environment allows us to strive for business excellence
in all the work that we do.

Specializing only in guarding intellectual property rights for clients
in The Gambia and Sierra Leone, AB & Co is a boutique agency that acts as Trademark & Patent Attorneys for principals the world over, along with partner law firms.

AB & Co provides supreme services concerning patents, industrial
designs, registration of trademarks, and other types of intellectual
property rights.

We are constantly conducting searches and giving assistances for
change of name and address, renewals, recordal of licenses, and
amendments.

Virginia's practice of automatically holding death row inmates in solitary confinement will be reviewed by a federal appeals court in a case that experts say could have repercussions beyond the state's borders.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria ruled last year that around-the-clock isolation of condemned inmates is so onerous that the Virginia Department of Corrections must assess its necessity on a case-by-case basis. Failure to do so, she said, violates the inmates' due process rights.

The state appealed, arguing that the courts should defer to the judgment of prison officials on safety issues. A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday.

The lawsuit was filed by Alfredo Prieto, who was on California's death row for raping and murdering a 15-year-old girl when a DNA sample connected him to the 1988 slayings of George Washington University students Rachel Raver and Warren Fulton III in Reston. He also was sentenced to death in Virginia, where he has spent most of the last six years alone in a 71-square-foot cell at the Sussex I State Prison.

Some capital punishment experts say a victory by Prieto could prompt similar lawsuits by death row inmates elsewhere.

"It gives them a road map," said northern Virginia defense attorney Jonathan Sheldon, who noted that the due process claim succeeded where allegations of cruel and unusual punishment have routinely failed. "It's not that common to challenge conditions of confinement on due process grounds."

The Supreme Court will consider reinstating the conviction and death sentence for a California man in a 29-year-old triple murder in San Diego.

The justices said Monday they will hear California's appeal of a federal appeals court ruling that overturned the conviction and sentence for Hector Ayala.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Ayala was denied a fair trial because prosecutors excused all seven black and Hispanic jurors who might have served.

The jury convicted Ayala of killing three people during a drug robbery at a San Diego garage in 1985. The case will be argued in the winter.

Conway & Conway law firm, located in New York, are impassioned about
representing public customers and industry professionals all over the
world with a team of devoted futures, securities, and commodities
arbitration attorneys. Constantly keeping abreast of developing and
current regulatory reforms, U.S. securities laws, and other topics of
interest to professionals and investors, our firm is responsive and
agile. We are large enough to handle many cases and simultaneously
provide personalized service to each client for their futures,
securities, or commodities case.

Founded in 1988, Conway & Conway has been a successful New York City
securities arbitration law firm, yielding fantastic results in
securities arbitration cases from their 565 Fifth Avenue headquarters.

At Conway & Conway, the firm's attorneys have the know-how to deal
with litigation and business counseling. At all points of negotiation
and acquisition, along with wrongful termination and other corporate
matters, we have advocated on behalf of our corporate clients. In
addition to corporate clients, the firm works with commercial clients
in all types of commercial and business litigation as well.

In the financial services industry, Conway & Conway gives exceptional
legal counsel to the public. Whether its investors in dispute or
issues with registered representatives and other associates, they have
the high-caliber legal counsel to help. Fraud lawyers at the firm are
well-versed in all things concerning the laws that apply to the
securities and futures industries.

The commodity merchant attorneys at Conway & Conway provide litigation
and arbitration services for international commodity merchants related
to trade disputes. Their extensive trial experience, combined with a
unique familiarity with the commodities industry foreign exchange and
futures markets, enables Conway & Conway dedicated commodity
arbitration attorneys to resolve serious commodity trade disputes in a
timely and cost-effective manner.

For international commodity merchants, the commodity merchant
attorneys at Conway & Conway administer arbitration and litigation
services pertinent to trade disputes.

In seemingly contradictory voting-rights actions just a month before November's elections, the Supreme Court has allowed new Republican-inspired restrictions to remain in force in North Carolina and Ohio while blocking Wisconsin's voter identification law.

But there's a thread of consistency: In each case, the court appears to be seeking a short-term outcome that is the least disruptive for the voting process.

Another test of the court's outlook on voter ID laws could come from Texas, where the state is promising to appeal a ruling that struck down its strict law as unconstitutional racial discrimination.

None of the orders issued by the high court in recent days is a final ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The orders are all about timing — whether the laws can be used in this year's elections — while the justices defer consideration of their validity.

In some ways, these disputes over the mechanics of voting are like others that crop up frequently just before elections as part of last-minute struggles by partisans to influence who can vote.

Republican lawmakers say the measures are needed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats contend they are thinly veiled attempts to keep eligible voters, many of them minorities supportive of Democrats, away from the polls.

Court rulings at various levels have also revealed partisan divisions. Most judges who voted to uphold the restrictive laws or allow them to take effect while the legal fights play out are Republican appointees. Most of those voting to strike down the laws or prevent them from being enforced were appointed by Democratic presidents. That is true even at the Supreme Court.

The high court has laid out one area of agreement: a general rule discouraging courts in general from letting potentially disruptive changes take effect at the last minute.

"The idea that courts should not impose a new set of voting rules just before an election is not a new one," said Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine law school.

This year, that idea appears to have led the Supreme Court to outcomes that on the surface appear to be inconsistent, Hasen said. One problem in reading too much into the orders is that they were issued with little explanation.

But in each case, the court took issue with lower court rulings that would have changed the rules too close to an election, Hasen said.