Search for: "California v. May" Results 181 - 200 of 26,090
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2024, 8:44 am by Jeff Welty
California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (holding that a state may not criminalize the status of being a drug addict), and conduct, which generally may be punished. [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Woody (California violated the religious liberty of members of the Native American Church who used peyote). [read post]
3 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
[Eagle-eyed readers might notice that the court cites Saunders v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 9:35 am by timothy-abeel
The 7.3 is a V8, which means it has eight cylinders in a V formation — the most common layout for eight-cylinder engines. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:38 am by Eric Goldman
But Minor’s wrongheaded vigilante efforts aren’t likely to occur often in other cases, so this may be a unique one-off. [read post]
3 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  While these justifications may be accurate, they do not fully explain why tobacco is subject to relatively light regulation compared to other deadly drugs. [read post]
3 May 2024, 4:00 am by Guest Blogger
Relevant here is the 2018 California Supreme Court case of Regents of University of California v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 3:23 pm
They will be called out and immortalized in the California Appellate Reports. [read post]
2 May 2024, 1:03 pm
Justice Corrigan authors a powerful opinion that holds that it's not permissible for the police to conduct a Terry stop just because someone's in a high crime area and pretending to tie his shoe behind a car in order to avoid the police, and Justice Evan authors an equally powerful concurrence (joined by a majority of the Court) that highlights the racial implications of a rule that assumes that the "normal" response to a police encounter is to welcome and/or consent to… [read post]
1 May 2024, 1:18 pm by Melissa Tremblay
District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that allegations a drug company offered inducements “to physicians quite openly” cut against an inference of scienter.[17] The Central District of California, in Gharibian v. [read post]