Search for: "United States v. California"
Results 2301 - 2320
of 13,833
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Sep 2007, 3:10 pm
In Stoner v. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 9:56 am
YouTube’s TOS says: All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Service will be governed by California law, except California’s conflict of laws rules, and will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA. [read post]
3 May 2022, 1:39 pm
Background In March 2018, the United States Supreme Court held in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2010, 12:03 am
Hall, ed., Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Oxford Univ. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 3:28 pm
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal.4th 1083 (2012); UFCW, Local 324 v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 11:22 am
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the practice in California Forestry Assn. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2012, 7:43 am
The Fourth Circuit’s decision here leans heavily on two Supreme Court precedents involving Bivens and the military context, United States v. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 9:32 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 12:57 pm
IQVIA Holdings Inc – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 7, 2022) involves a claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under state and federal law. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 3:45 pm
By Cori BadgleyIn the recent case of California Forestry Association v. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 3:45 pm
By Cori BadgleyIn the recent case of California Forestry Association v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 12:15 am
Rumsfeld v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 1:28 pm
River Spirit Casino (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, jurisdiction)United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 9:52 am
Additionally, Monsanto admitted that it never conducted any long-term carcinogenicity studies on any of the formulations that it’s sold in the United States.Holding:The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRRA) 7 U.S.C. ch. 6 §136 et al. does not preempt state law. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 9:10 am
Citing Google v. [read post]
4 Mar 2016, 8:02 am
If that’s CDCR’s argument, it’s plainly wrong: in United States v. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 8:00 am
The Petitioning States quickly moved to intervene in the Ninth Circuit to protect their interests previously represented by the United States. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 1:41 pm
(California law provides that its courts may exercise jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution . . . of the United States,” Cal. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 4:52 am
" The case, Arizona v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 9:50 pm
Over at the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse argues that the results in United States v. [read post]
