Search for: "California v. Force"
Results 5121 - 5140
of 6,451
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2011, 9:26 am
Through the California Redevelopment Association, the pro-redevelopment forces are well organized and have over the last several years successfully resorted to litigation – the reversal of the state's attempt to shift $2.1 billion of redevelopment agency funds in 2008 – and the ballot box – the passage of Proposition 22 in 2010, which would prevent the State's shifting of redevelopment funds in the future. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 3:45 am
Richter and Premo v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 8:25 pm
Target (Docket Report) (EDTexweblog.com) Claim amendments in reexamination eliminate patentee’s right to past damages: District Court C D California – Antonious v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 5:22 pm
(Here's my April 2010 post on Hoang v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 10:35 am
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 10:17 am
References Forced entry: Is a controversial state law a missing piece in treating mental illness? [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 9:57 am
Title: City of Santa Rosa, California v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 11:46 am
Supreme Court today issued its decision in NASA v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 1:44 pm
The President said: "For two centuries, America's free market has not only been the source of dazzling ideas and path-breaking products, it has also been the greatest force for prosperity the world has ever known. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 8:42 am
California Pharmacists (09-1158), and Maxwell-Jolly v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 2:50 pm
Because here is a person that will: * Represent a hated individual; * Receive death threats from other wackos out there; * Be outgunned by the Department of Justice; * And move from a private practice in Southern California to Arizona in order to do it, and do it for public dollars as opposed to more lucrative private ones. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 3:35 am
Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v Canon (Patents Post Grant Blog) District Court C D California: Microsoft Word does not infringe patent claiming user interface that is ‘continuously responsive to user input’ even though the accused interface ‘from the user’s standpoint… remains continuously responsive’: Walker Digital, LLC v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 8:00 am
Kentucky v. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
He told the New York Times that he is unable to live with his wife and he is forced to be homeless. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 8:50 am
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/840393.no1.pdf State v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 12:04 am
Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Morrison v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 12:01 am
., et al. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 9:08 am
-Gary V. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 8:37 am
State of California, No. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 4:05 am
January 4, 2011) (unpublished).* Forced DNA extraction from a California prison inmate required by statute for identifying information was not a violation of the Fourth or Eighth Amendments. [read post]
