Search for: "California v. Texas"
Results 2261 - 2280
of 4,429
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2015, 10:31 am
In Verdugo v. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 2:13 am
The issue was then settled, at least in the Supreme Court, in the controversial Texas v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 9:29 am
University of Texas at Austin, 14-981 (the affirmative action case), and Currier v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 7:35 am
Marshall v. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 3:00 am
We’re also expecting a decision very soon in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 10:41 am
Contrary to these general principles, on May 28, 2015, in Verdugo v. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 8:32 am
That was until 1977, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Bates v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
In Verdugo v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 8:13 am
Esquire Texas Ruling Shows the Benefits We’d Get From a Federal Anti-SLAPP Law–American Heritage Capital v. [read post]
29 May 2015, 3:03 pm
Supply Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 9:00 am
Abbott, the Texas “one person, one vote” case, comes from David Savage and David Lauter, who in the Los Angeles Times focus on the decision’s potential effect on California politics, and – also in the Los Angeles Times – from Cathleen Decker, who notes that the Court’s “unexpected decision to take up [the] case poses perhaps the most acute threat in a generation to Latino political strength in California” but adds that… [read post]
27 May 2015, 12:46 pm
So, while Texas hates to look to California for, pretty much, anything, and while Texas and California law often diverge significantly, on this specific issue it pays to take note of what California companies have been cooking in their own courts. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
In the latter category we place Newman v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 4:45 am
The taxman prevailed in ETC Marketing v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 4:00 am
[2] Saloma v. [read post]
24 May 2015, 3:07 pm
” United States v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 9:01 pm
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans). [read post]
18 May 2015, 5:44 am
There may be licensing requirements for private process servers, as is the case in New York City, Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Montana, Nevada, and Oklahoma. . . .Other jurisdictions, such as Georgia, require a court order allowing a private person to serve process. [read post]
17 May 2015, 3:51 pm
In late February, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling in favor of an employer in EEOC v. [read post]
12 May 2015, 6:00 am
” (In re Bryan D. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 127, 138–139; see, e.g., S.Y. v. [read post]
