Search for: "State v. Lujan"
Results 181 - 200
of 232
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Aug 2010, 11:46 am
Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (1999), which dealt with the “injury in fact” standard to provide standing to a qui tam plaintiff, and Lujan v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm
” Opinion at 17 (citing Lujan v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 11:29 am
See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
Lujan. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:14 pm
Larry Lujan, 2010 U.S. [read post]
2 May 2010, 1:12 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 7:05 pm
Significantly, the Court was careful to note that pleading the requisite degree of “injury” for purposes of Prop 64 standing is not onerous:We also relied on the United States Supreme Court's description of "injury in fact" for federal court standing purposes as " 'an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,' "… [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 4:42 am
Citing Lujan v. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 7:34 am
As Church's claim is a state law claim for retaliation, the California Court of Appeal decision in Mamou v. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 7:34 am
As Church's claim is a state law claim for retaliation, the California Court of Appeal decision in Mamou v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm
Part II shifts focus to the Court’s specifically environmental standing decisions in the 20th century, emphasizing the importance of its 1992 decision in Lujan v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 6:27 pm
HOSPITAL SETTLE FRAUD CASE FOR $3 MILLION, United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 4:57 am
The Colorado Supreme Court handed down a decision in the matter of Lujan v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 7:37 pm
Lujan v. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 11:13 am
See Acosta v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 4:20 pm
Supreme Court case called Lujan v. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 2:04 pm
Lujan, 960 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1992). [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
Lujan v. [read post]
4 Aug 2009, 3:42 am
Lujan v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 11:43 am
United States of America (C.D.Cal. filed Mar. 9, 2009) on the motion of the California Attorney General, and has done so on narrow, procedural grounds, without reaching the merits of the due process and equal-protection claims:As Plaintiffs' marriage is valid within California, they cannot present an injury with respect to the recognition of their marriage by the State of California under Lujan [v. [read post]
