Search for: "State of California v. United States"
Results 9721 - 9740
of 13,838
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2010, 12:37 pm
The epic battle that could have been Lindsay Lohan v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 9:33 am
The suit, Dumas et al. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:30 am
Finally, the Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California where ten similar cases were pending against these defendants. [read post]
7 May 2018, 9:19 am
Preliminary reports by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) suggested that the man was allegedly walking along the southbound lanes of Highway 99 near V Street. [read post]
12 May 2023, 2:21 pm
CLIENT ALERT: Price v. [read post]
12 May 2023, 2:21 pm
But Price continued his suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the permit-and-fee requirements were “facially unconstitutional” under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [read post]
19 May 2021, 12:36 am
United States. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 12:12 am
In Barrett Business Services, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 8:00 am
See Graham v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:57 am
United States Fish & Wildlife – 5/26/15. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 12:18 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 12:25 pm
United States. [read post]
14 Sep 2021, 12:26 pm
Chandra v. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 4:45 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:28 pm
Because infringement occurred “all over the United States, including Delaware . . . the claims arise in every judicial district. [read post]
12 May 2011, 6:33 am
In Peviani v. [read post]
Following Judge Sutton’s rejection of the “inactivity” argument, the Supreme Court can take its time
5 Aug 2011, 1:00 pm
Lopez (1995) and United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2021, 7:32 am
California, 220153Issue: Whether California’s sanctions against Texas and Texans – prohibiting state-funded or state-sponsored travel to Texas because Texas protects the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its borders – are born of religious animus and violate the Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause, interstate commerce clause and guarantee of equal protection. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 2:32 pm
Similarly, the Northern District of California recently addressed the case of PhoneDog v. [read post]
