Search for: "State v. District Court (Brown)"
Results 661 - 680
of 3,172
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2018, 3:17 pm
Wolf, 2016 WL 396520 (not officially published), Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California, filed Jan. 29, 2016. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 7:18 am
The style of the case is, Scott Browning v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 3:27 pm
AT&T Mobility LLC., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with the conclusion of the court in Quevedo v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 10:20 am
Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. [read post]
1 Aug 2018, 2:25 pm
" If Judge Browning's reasoning is followed by other federal and state courts, it could help curb asset forfeiture abuse in many states. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 3:03 pm
Region, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009) (quoting United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2025, 9:49 am
(NA), LLC v. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 1:41 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm
Although Brown fell far short of resolving all the issues connected to race, I doubt that, 49 years after Brown, any of these states would have filed a brief asking to return to de jure segregation.By contrast, when the Court decided Roe, only six states and the District of Columbia had legalized abortion. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 3:13 pm
Dist., 55 Cal. 2d 224, 232 (1961), abrogated on other grounds by Brown v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 12:26 am
Browning U.S. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 6:00 am
In Department of State v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 3:17 pm
’” (slip op. at 6) (citing United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 7:54 am
Coverage of the Court once more continues to focus on Monday’s order putting same-sex marriages in Utah on hold pending the state’s appeal of a federal district court’s decision striking down the state’s ban on such marriages. [read post]
16 May 2023, 3:35 pm
As in the years after Brown v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 7:06 am
Brown (08-730). [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 2:38 am
The state district court determined that although the stop was unconstitutional Fackrell’s discovery of the warrant was an “intervening circumstance” and therefore the evidence was admissible. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 12:55 am
The district court (Judge Brown of the District of Oregon) allowed the state to intervene but ultimately granted the parties' motion for dismissal. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 7:44 am
Brown v. [read post]
