Search for: "Doe v. Becerra" Results 81 - 100 of 268
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2018, 4:07 pm by David Greene
So we have once again filed a friend of the court brief opposing that effort.The case, IMDB v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:39 am by Aurora Barnes
Becerra 16-1153 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 8:28 am by John Elwood
Alabama, 16-9282  Whether, when trial counsel does not testify about his or her own strategic decisions as part of a claim under Strickland v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 10:49 am by John Elwood
Alabama, 16-9282 Issue: Whether, when trial counsel does not testify about his or her own strategic decisions as part of a claim under Strickland v. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 1:25 pm by rainey Reitman
Xavier Becerra and United States of America v. [read post]
Supreme Court majority’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 4:15 pm by lcampbell@lawbc.com
Becerra, and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of a Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning label for pesticide products containing glyphosate. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 9:00 am by Dave Maass
Kate Brown The Enemy of the Press Award: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra The Stupid, Dumb, F**king Idiot Award for Political Interference: U.S. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 9:00 am by Dave Maass
Kate Brown The Enemy of the Press Award: California Attorney General Xavier Becerra The Stupid, Dumb, F**king Idiot Award for Political Interference: U.S. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 1:40 pm by Aurora Barnes
Alabama 16-9282 Issue: Whether, when trial counsel does not testify about his or her own strategic decisions as part of a claim under Strickland v. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 12:18 pm by John Elwood
Becerra, 16-1146, and Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
The Supreme Court in its recent NIFLA v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 6:50 am by Joy Waltemath
” This objection does not run to the Board’s authority or its jurisdiction, and does not amount to an “extraordinary circumstance” excusing forfeiture under the jurisdictional requirement of 29 U.S.C. 160(e). [read post]