Search for: "Taking Offense v. California"
Results 301 - 320
of 1,358
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2010, 3:31 pm
The 9th held that California law applies because the state law is interpreted to apply when any partial execution of the offense occurs with the state's jurisdiction. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 1:29 am
The Californian Supreme Court has ruled on the case of Barrett v Rosenthal. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 11:36 am
The court also noted my exchange with then-California AG Becerra (now head of HHS). [read post]
23 May 2011, 12:35 pm
In taking this view, Congress was well aware of the impact of previous prisoner release orders. [read post]
15 Feb 2017, 2:14 pm
This post examines an opinion from the California Court ofAppeal – Second District: People v. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 10:00 am
Avery v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 8:39 am
I just read Anders v California for the first time (ever, or in a long time) in preparation for writing this post. [read post]
20 Aug 2017, 4:54 am
Husman v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 9:01 pm
Sitz and Delaware v. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 10:58 am
Some of the posts were graphically sexual, racist, or otherwise offensive (and false). [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 4:47 pm
We are betraying our duty of zealous representation if we fail to advocate against enhancements using all the authority at our disposal.Dear Defender:So if the Court basically is just sticking by Taylor on an issue that covers many sentencing situations, why did the Court bother taking the case? [read post]
2 Oct 2024, 2:37 pm
Cal.) in Kohls v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 9:35 am
Pritchard v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 9:08 pm
They are one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it contracts. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 3:31 pm
This may require security officers to remain on the premises and on call during paid rest periods, and to carry and monitor a communication device… it is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate, for the security services industry only, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Augustus v. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 9:33 am
And if the government gets away with taking away their rights, the government might get away with taking away everyone else’s rights, too. [read post]
28 May 2024, 7:46 am
Superior Court in McGee v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 10:58 am
It was decided by the court in People v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 2:29 pm
Hamilton Bank that requires property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims; and (2) whether Williamson County’s ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims that assert that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face, as the U.S. [read post]
10 Sep 2021, 11:49 am
Brune v. [read post]
