Search for: "Hill v. California Board of Hearings" Results 81 - 100 of 154
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Oct 2018, 11:28 am by John Elwood
State Bar of California and Lathrop v. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The use of the Stars and Stripes has featured in First Amendment cases in the past and it played a part in Dariano v Morgan Hill Unified School District (8 November 2011). [read post]
18 Mar 2018, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
The Standford Cyberlaw blog has noted California’s legislative attempts to safeguard net neutrality rules in two posts. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:18 am
(Afro-IP)   Australia Preliminary question: does applicant own copyright it is seeking to enforce: Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited (LawFont)   Canada Canadian copyright collecting agency subverting open debate on copyright (Boing Boing) (Excess Copyright) (Michael Geist) CMEC seeks review of K-12 Copyright Board tariff (Excess Copyright) The return of Captain Copyright? [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 11:13 am by Rachel Bercovitz
District Court for the District of Columbia in Paracha v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:00 am by Garrett Hinck
Supreme Court last cited one of its pieces in McDonald v. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Dissatisfied with California's management of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, the United States sues the state's Water Resources Control Board in both state court and federal. [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
The Volokh Conspiracy has a post on the decision in Molinaro v Molinaro – in which the California Court of Appeal reversed an order prohibiting a party from posting anything about the case on Facebook. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Defendant's California conviction for grand theft from a person in violation of section 487(2) of the California Penal Code was a "violent felony" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Congress has made no conflict-of-interest rules limiting the interactions of lobbyists returning to Capitol Hill. [read post]