Search for: "State of California v. United States"
Results 7581 - 7600
of 13,843
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2014, 5:53 am
United States, in which the Court – again divided six to three – held that a criminal defendant whose assets have been frozen before his trial does not have a right to a hearing to challenge the probable cause for his indictment, even if he needs the money to hire a lawyer to defend him against the charges. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 4:22 pm
United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (ethics restriction on competitive bidding); Goldfarb v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 4:16 pm
By Matthew Hinks The well-known "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests from the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Nollan v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 11:00 am
Lefstin, University of California Hastings College of the Law, has posted Inventive Application: A History. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 5:12 am
Brown v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 6:39 am
The case resolved by this settlement, United States ex rel. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
United States, by Judith V. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 12:41 pm
Co., a 1957 opinion from the United States Supreme Court that seems pretty on point. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:26 am
District Judge Vaughn Walker striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, noting that although the Supreme Court later “chose to speak on gay marriage through a narrower case, ruling only that the federal government must recognize marriages solemnized under state law,” since then the lower courts “have been reading the [United States v.] [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:13 am
Lilly v. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 4:56 am
as far as the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) is concerned. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 12:35 pm
There is a First Amendment issue lurking in the requirement that the policy statement “shall indicate” support of the AAP by the contractor’s “top United States executive,” Fox pointed out, explaining that this is a government requirement compelling the executive to express a certain viewpoint. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:57 am
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 7:51 am
See discussion in Krinsky v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 6:28 am
California and United States v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 6:28 am
Of course, for federal private-prison inmates, suits against the United States directly are out. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 11:20 am
During employment of the retirees represented by REAOC, the County and employee bargaining units entered into several MOUs. [read post]
