Search for: "Childs v. State of California (1983)"
Results 101 - 120
of 157
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2010, 1:21 pm
Supreme Court of California, January 21, 2010 People v. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
City of New York , No. 06-1983 Read more... [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:47 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 3:14 pm
California (1973), but modified for minors. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 7:41 am
Failure to Warn: CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT BACKS DISMISSAL OF SURGICAL TOOL INJURY SUIT, Courtenay v. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
" Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 3:15 am
See Reed, 576 U.S. at 163; AAPC, 591 U.S. at 618 (plurality opinion); United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm
§ 1681t, preempts a California statute that creates a private damages remedy for violations of state law with respect to the obligations of furnishers of information to CRAs.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (9th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's replyAmicus brief for the American Bankers Association et al.Amicus brief for the California Apartment AssociationAmicus brief for the Consumer Data Industry Association Title: Wilson… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Fancher, No. 06-4913 "480-month sentence based on guilty plea to receiving child pornography is vacated where the district court did not provide sufficient notice that it was considering an above-Guidelines sentence. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
State of Tennessee, No. 06-6208 In civil rights suit alleging that city police discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the Ame [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 1:09 pm
Supreme Court, March 19, 2008 Snyder v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Beard, No. 07-3711 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit by prison inmates challenging the confiscation of legal materials by state corrections officials, dismissals of some claims and summary judgment for defendants on the remainder are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury in their claim of loss of access to the courts; 2) defendants demonstrated a legitimate governmental interest in stopping inmates from filing fraudulent liens and judgments against… [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 10:11 am
Nunnemaker (which has been the subject of other relisted petitions in the past year), it should look to the last opinion in lower California state court, which was a decision based on procedural grounds, to decide that it could turn to the merits without affording the state courts deference. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am
He argued that the prosecution was itself a form of detention under the Fourth Amendment that he could Sue under Section 1983 for damages. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 8:08 am
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008 State of Wisconsin v. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 7:15 am
The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, premised on 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell v. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 5:30 am
Concepcion (Federal Arbitration Act preemption of California rule that a waiver of class arbitration in a consumer contract may be unenforceable) Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Hepp, No. 07-4079 In a prosecution for the sexual assault of a child, denial of a petition for habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) the state court's denial of defendant's request to present an alternative theory of the victim's injuries was not objectively unreasonable; and 2) there was no evidence that the sentencing judge relied on inaccurate information. . [read post]
