Search for: "HEAD v. CALIFORNIA"
Results 2201 - 2220
of 2,908
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Feb 2011, 11:15 am
Buchanan in San Diego, California. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 6:19 pm
Well, the California Supreme Court placed Chung v. the People of California on hold pending its decision in Troyer. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
(2) Does Moradi-Shalal v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 11:00 am
This was finally settled by the California Supreme Court's Murphy v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 2:00 am
Press, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 6:00 pm
In Ceron v. 321 Henderson Receivables, No. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 2:56 pm
The Legislation.gov.uk service is delivered by The National Archives (of which OPSI is part) with John Sheridan, Head of e-Services and Strategy, at the helm. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 12:56 pm
What can be at risk in a court hearing is your right to your child, the roof over your head, or your income. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 10:16 pm
Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 5:15 pm
x Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports: In a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision preserving the broad availability of the state’s principal consumer protection laws in cases involving mislabeled goods.The question at issue in Kwikset v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:11 am
The California Court of Appeals opinion in Ceron v. 321 Henderson Receivables, No. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 1:52 pm
The civil lawsuit, Beaty, et al. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 5:33 am
v=wall&ref=ts # Are there any human beings out there? [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:30 pm
Kwikset Corporation v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Fell Kennedy v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
Jan. 21, 2011); LeFaivre v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 1:11 am
People v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:18 pm
In the recent case of People v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:26 am
Not surprisingly, John Shirey, the head of the California Redevelopment Association, strongly disagrees with that assessment, and warns of severe negative consequences of eliminating redevelopment agencies, including staggering economic and job losses.[1] Numerous developers concur with Shirey, and believe their redevelopment projects would not have occurred but for redevelopment subsidies and other redevelopment agency assistance. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 5:25 am
Supreme Court in Dukes, et al. v. [read post]
