Search for: "City of National City v. State of California (1983)"
Results 101 - 120
of 124
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2008, 8:25 pm
California Appellate Districts, September 09, 2008 Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:14 pm
" U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 03, 2008 Villegas v Gilroy Garlic Festival, No. 05-15725 "In a civil rights action against the City of Gilroy and the Gilroy Garlic Festival Association, alleging First Amendment violations involving the festival's dress code, summary judgment to defendants and a holding of no state action or municipal liability are affirmed where: 1) the festival association is not a state actor; and 2) the… [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:10 pm
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., No. 05-75295, 05-76217, 05-77116 Six restrictions on expressive activity promulgated and enforced by two California shopping malls infringe on the free speech rights guaranteed by the California State Constitution, and therefore interfere with protected union activity in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when applied to union picketing and handbilling actions. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm
Spoons, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 6:17 pm
" Supreme Court of California, July 28, 2008 People v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:43 pm
George Equal Justice Award, Central California Legal Services2006 - Los Angeles Inner City Law Center's Humanitarian Award2006 - Mathew O. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 18, 2008 In re Sims, No. 06-0644 In an inmate's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force, inmate's petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order requiring him to produce his mental health records is granted because: 1) a plaintiff does not forfeit the psychotherapist-patient privilege merely by asserting a claim for injuries that do not include emotional damage, or by stating that he suffers from depression or… [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 8:59 pm
Supreme Court of California, July 14, 2008 Silicon Valley Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 9:52 pm
On Friday, the National Rifle Association filed five lawsuits, seeking to apply the Constitution’s Second Amendment to block gun control laws adopted by local governments in California and Illinois. [read post]
27 May 2008, 10:06 am
Davis, No. 06-666 In the context of states/subdivisions' exemption of interest on their own bonds from their state income taxes, which are imposed on bond interest from other states, the Court rules that Kentucky's version of such a differential tax scheme does not offend the Commerce Clause. [read post]
23 May 2008, 1:35 am
City of Hope National Medical Center v. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
City of New York , No. 06-1983 Read more... [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 1:01 pm
California Appellate Districts, March 20, 2008 People v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, No. 05-4200 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by an anonymous plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from aspects of Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, or Megan's Law, a judgment finding that the treatment of out-of-state offenders under the law violates the Equal Protection Clause is affirmed where: 1) although Pennsylvania's interest in protecting its citizens from sexually… [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 6:28 am
Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 3:58 am
"While Kendall is among the nation's top anti-death penalty lawyers, the trail he has blazed through the nation's courtrooms is but a part of his legacy to the civil rights community.He has appeared in trial courts in 22 states and has argued appeals in 6 federal courts of appeal, 7 state supreme courts, and the U.S. [read post]
17 Dec 2007, 3:14 pm
In City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 9:14 am
v. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Wilder, No. 06-60711 In a to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and two of its employees, dismissal of claims against one defendant is affirmed where defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions, in the form of pressuring and assisting plaintiff in committing a charged crime, even to the extent that they constituted entrapment under state law, did not by themselves constitute a violation of a… [read post]
