Search for: "United States v. California" Results 4021 - 4040 of 13,835
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2018, 5:00 am by Sarah Grant
Defendants then sought the same relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. [read post]
19 Aug 2018, 3:15 am by Barry Sookman
https://t.co/K6HtJZF2xq 2018-08-14 The WIPO Internet Treaties: New Zealand Will Soon Join 97 Other Countries as a Member https://t.co/Cz295kwNLx 2018-08-14 In a Divided Opinion, California Supreme Court Squashes End Run around CDA Immunity https://t.co/f5ocaz6S9X 2018-08-14 A Cautionary Tale of Sarcasm in Social Media–Ross v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 10:32 am by Jon Ibanez
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Navarette v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:59 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Use in the United States has increased from 40 million pounds to almost 300 million pounds, according to the Sierra Club. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:45 am by Eugene Volokh
In Keene, the plaintiff, a California State Senator, argued that the Department of Justice's decision to label three films as "political propaganda" violated the First Amendment. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:16 am by Staff
An Uphill Battle to Ban Glyphosate in the United States Despite evidence of its carcinogenic properties, glyphosate is remains legal in the United States. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 7:00 am by PatentArcade Admin
United States District Court for the Northern District of California Docket No. 3-18-cv-03451, filed June 11, 2018 Atari Interactive, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 8:00 am by Ben
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et al, case number 2:18-cv-01435, filed in the United States District Court Central District of California, claimed the two works were "in many ways identical". [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 11:54 pm by Steve Lubet
In the AAUP, we encounter such violations, petty and large, on a daily basis in the United States. [read post]
11 Aug 2018, 8:29 pm by RHP
  In any given instance when canine force is used for criminal apprehension, there is the potential for a violation of the individual’s fourth amendment rights as specified in the United States Constitution. [read post]