Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 6561 - 6580
of 33,829
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2020, 4:06 am
In Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 2:04 pm
North American Olive Oil Ass’n v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 11:17 am
The matter came to the Supreme Court in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 8:29 am
Laws that permissibly restrict true threats are nonetheless content-based—in Virginia v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 7:14 am
She accepted the position and moved to California. [read post]
1 May 2020, 6:02 am
Katz, and Sabastian V. [read post]
1 May 2020, 3:57 am
” At Reuters, Ted Hesson provides an explainer for Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 5:06 pm
Even without reading the Ninth Circuit stuff, reading the California opinions -- which total well over three hundred pages today -- took the majority of my working day. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:19 pm
SpainDario v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:11 pm
(Hughes v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:09 pm
If Van Buren had been a police officer in New York, North Carolina or California and ran the license plate search using a law enforcement database in any of those states, he could not have been prosecuted under the CFAA. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 2:20 pm
Next up before the Court, with oral argument set for this Tuesday, May 5, is another case in which some parties are asking the Court to take a fresh look at the law on vested rights as applied to pensions – Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, et al. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 2:15 pm
If Van Buren had been a police officer in New York, North Carolina or California and ran the license plate search using a law enforcement database in any of those states, he could not have been prosecuted under the CFAA. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 11:32 am
”) [6] See § 950, Duty To Mitigate., 1 Witkin, Summary of California Law, 11th Contracts (2019) (“where the result of waiting and continuing his or her own performance is to enhance damages, the duty to mitigate them arises and limits plaintiff’s election”) (citing Bomberger v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 9:59 am
California, 19-532Issue: Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement officials from providing federal immigration authorities with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or barred by intergovernmental immunity. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 7:48 am
Eight years ago, in a case called Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 5:54 am
Lee v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
In Gish v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 8:36 pm
In Gutierrez v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 12:59 pm
California property law and Supreme Court precedent make clear that an easement is private property protected by the Takings Clause. [read post]
