Search for: "California v. Force"
Results 3641 - 3660
of 6,450
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2009, 7:13 am
Ohio 2005); and People v. [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 5:46 am
The panel quotes De Canas v. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 6:24 am
At least some lower California courts have agreed, but in Martinez v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 10:19 am
District Court for the Eastern District of California 2009). [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 6:00 am
The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am
Following the decision in Massachusetts v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 8:06 am
Buck v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 3:20 pm
United States, in which the Supreme Court affirmed the deportation of every Japanese American from California to a concentration camp; Plessy v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 6:50 am
In Astrue v. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 10:11 am
Abood v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
Dec. 30, 2009) (applying California law); Mayberry v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:15 pm
Geren, No. 06-1666 In cases concerning the availability of habeas corpus relief arising from an international coalition force's detention of American citizens who voluntarily traveled to Iraq and were alleged to have committed crimes there, the Court rules that the habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 8:06 am
Van Dusen v. [read post]
9 May 2022, 7:01 am
From Judge Freda Wolfson's opinion Friday in McGillvary v. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 7:22 am
In Gray v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 10:00 am
Petrella v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 4:53 am
People v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 6:15 am
But the action of the Commission in denying him a license because of his refusal to serve in the Armed Forces while granting licenses to hundreds of other applicants convicted of other crimes and military offenses involving moral turpitude appears on its face to be an intentional, arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination against plaintiff, not the even-handed administration of the law which the Fourteenth Amendment requires. [read post]
