Search for: "Taking Offense v. California" Results 301 - 320 of 1,468
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2014, 4:33 am
I don't need credit for an attempt, so take that how you want to. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
California gave short shrift to the idea that the captive audience doctrine might be used to protect viewers in a public space who are exposed to images they deem offensive (Cohen’s “Fuck the Draft” jacket). [read post]
3 May 2019, 1:25 pm
[Y]ou’re aware that the State of California requires you to pass a background check, right? [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 6:22 am
Atwood (California Court of Appeals 2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 805, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 67; Tusher v. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 5:41 am by Susan Brenner
California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003)), that fall into four general categories. . . . [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:31 pm by Jon Sands
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]
16 Jun 2015, 11:41 pm
She also sent Google five take-down notices under Article 17 USC, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, all in vain. [read post]