Search for: "Murphy v. California"
Results 441 - 460
of 541
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2023, 9:05 pm
Packert Trustee Chair in Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, discussed how the Sackett v. [read post]
30 Apr 2025, 5:33 pm
The Supreme Court said as much in Bridges v. [read post]
3 Oct 2005, 2:50 am
ATLANTIC V. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 12:15 am
V. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
California Coastal Commission did not apply to the ordinance where the ordinance did not require Watson to dedicate any portion of his property to either the City's or the public's use. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:46 pm
But even if it's just treated as symbolic expression, it is still constitutionally protected, as cases such as Texas v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 12:57 pm
A California trial court disagreed, noting that surrounding provisions of the PSLRA explicitly mention state-court actions, suggesting the omission here was limited the provision to federal-court actions only. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
22 Nov 2021, 9:01 pm
NFIB v. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
”Professor Dorf acknowledged that the so-called anti-commandeering doctrine (affirmed as recently as 2018 in Murphy v. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 12:23 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm
California, 134 S. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 9:01 pm
In his controlling opinion in the 1978 case of Regents of Univ. of California v. [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 1:06 pm
Cruz v. [read post]
26 Jan 2025, 2:53 pm
Judge Murphy offered an additional concurrence that is worth a read. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 10:00 am
” Minor v. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 12:30 pm
Friends, we are excited to share that the Supreme Court has just taken up Gonzalez v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 2:43 pm
California dreamin’? [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 7:32 am
DOI: http://doi.org/10.16997/eslj.205 [7] Amateur Sports Act of 1978.,95 P.L. 606, 92 Stat. 3045 [8] San Francisco Arts & Ath., Inc. v. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 6:38 am
However, the precise definition of obscenity was unclear, and the Supreme Court would not rule that obscenity was not constitutionally protected speech until Roth v. [read post]
