Search for: "United States v. California" Results 4341 - 4360 of 13,835
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2020, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
Today the justices will hear argument in one case, United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 6:21 am
  An example of possible alternative is provided by a recent certification Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
19 Apr 2009, 6:00 am
However the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's challenge to the frequency of religious services in his prison unit. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:31 pm by Lowell Brown
Momentum is strong in the wake of the court’s June 2013 decisions in United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 2:30 pm
" Id.The other line of authority consists of decisions by the United States Supreme Court holding that "sue and be sued" clauses are construed liberally. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 8:18 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Williams Comment PDF The Opioid Crisis in Indian Country: The Impact of Tribal Jurisdiction and the Role of the Exhaustion DoctrineMatt Irby Notes PDF Internet Gaming On & Off Tribal LandsLogan Blackmore PDF Digging Deeper to Protect Tribal Property Interests: United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 9:25 am by Wesley Shelton
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 6:13 am by Howard Friedman
Kennedy, (5th Cir., April 2, 2013), the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the state of Texas had failed to adequately justify under RLUIPA its policy of prohibiting prisoners from wearing beards for religious reasons.In United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 8:52 am
For Justice Kennedy, however, it simply wasn't clear from the record whether such coercive pressure existed in Musladin's trial, which is why he believed the California courts' application of federal law wasn't necessarily unreasonable.And:Putting aside what might have separated the Justices, what united them was a firm and definite conviction that the Ninth Circuit panel reached the wrong result. [read post]