Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 5361 - 5380
of 33,829
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jul 2012, 1:52 pm
The Justice Department does not mention it at all in a new petition filed Tuesday challenging DOMA in a California case (Office of Personnel Management v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:00 am
Fairbanks v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 9:24 am
On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 5:15 pm
Suppose you -- as constitutionally-sensitive activist -- think that California's gay marriage ban violates the federal Constitution's protection of "equal protection of the laws" -- and think that Romer v. [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm
Implant Direct Manufacturing, LLC., California Magistrate Judge William V. [read post]
8 Nov 2016, 1:57 pm
State of Washington (Treaty Right to Take Shellfish) California Valley Miwok Tribe v. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 11:10 am
The Video Game Industry can now add Oklahoma to their list of victories against game laws, as an opinion was released today in Entertainment Merchants Association v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 5:31 pm
Uniforms in the Workplace – New Case Law: Townley v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 5:19 am
McGill v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 12:43 pm
Under California law, a statute enacted by the people through the initiative process may not be repealed or superseded through ordinary legislation. [read post]
A California Judge Allows a Baker to Discriminate Against a Lesbian Couple Who Wanted a Wedding Cake
7 Feb 2018, 7:00 am
” And in Roberts v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 7:00 am
” And in Roberts v. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 6:19 pm
The Estate of Bette Davis et al v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:19 pm
Under California law, the public has a right to see the documents that led San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Clifford V. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 6:41 pm
Sandell v Taylor-Listug (California Court of Appeals No. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 3:00 pm
If passed, it would not just impose a warrant requirement to access e-mail, but would also require that law enforcement officials not interact with any electronic device in the possession of a citizen—to put the law in formal compliance with the unanimous 2014 Supreme Court decision Riley v. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
Earlier this month, in Trump v. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 9:46 am
See California Civil Code 1788 et seq., California Civil Code 1788.17, Alkan v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 1:39 pm
Union Oil Co. of California, 394 F. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 2:11 pm
Similarly, while the narrow holding was that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it allowed some nonconsensual recordings -- particularly, body-worn cameras by police officers -- but not others, most state laws contain the same exceptions.So for states -- including California -- with two-party consent statutes, if the opinion stands, I doubt that most of them would survive. [read post]
