Search for: "Johnson v. City and County of San Francisco"
Results 21 - 40
of 67
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2016, 5:00 pm
City and County of San Francisco; and (2) whether, alternatively, federal courts can and should waive Williamson County’s state litigation requirement for prudential reasons when a federal takings claim is factually concrete without state procedures, as some circuit courts hold, or apply the requirement as a rigid jurisdictional barrier, as other circuits hold. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 6:05 pm
Johnson & Johnson (DePuy), Superior Court of San Francisco County, Calif. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 3:24 am
At the ACLU’s Blog of Rights, Susan Mizner discusses City and County of San Francisco v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). [read post]
7 Aug 2010, 7:46 pm
Yesterday, I drove to downtown San Francisco — something which, on a weekday, is definitely not on my list of favorite things to do — to the Hiram W. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 8:51 am
City and County of San Francisco PC 596/2 47 6/15/22 21-234 George v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 8:51 am
City and County of San Francisco PC 596/2 47 6/15/22 21-234 George v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
PHIL JOHNSON, Justice. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 5:00 am
In City of Richmond v. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 11:00 pm
City and County of San Francisco; and (2) whether, alternatively, federal courts can and should waive Williamson County’s state litigation requirement for prudential reasons when a federal takings claim is factually concrete without state procedures, as some circuit courts hold, or apply the requirement as a rigid jurisdictional barrier, as other circuits hold. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 9:04 am
City and County of San Francisco, 545 U. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 6:50 pm
City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a state court’s resolution of a takings claim would essentially govern in any subsequent federal lawsuit. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 9:51 am
City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 347 (2005). [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 5:21 am
City and County of San Francisco; and (2) whether, alternatively, federal courts can and should waive Williamson County’s state litigation requirement for prudential reasons when a federal takings claim is factually concrete without state procedures, as some circuit courts hold, or apply the requirement as a rigid jurisdictional barrier, as other circuits hold. [read post]
2 May 2010, 8:13 am
City and County of San Francisco (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 691, 329 P.2d 943 is also instructive. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 10:35 am
City and County of San Francisco; and (2) whether, alternatively, federal courts can and should waive Williamson County’s state litigation requirement for prudential reasons when a federal takings claim is factually concrete without state procedures, as some circuit courts hold, or apply the requirement as a rigid jurisdictional barrier, as other circuits hold. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 8:11 am
(The bulk of the brief for the City and County of San Francisco is devoted to this argument.) [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 12:46 pm
City and County of San Francisco, which held that a state court’s resolution of a claim for just compensation under state law will generally preclude any federal suit. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 12:01 am
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), and San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 10:12 am
City and County of San Francisco, California, 20-1212, concerns when a takings claim becomes ripe for review. [read post]
