Search for: "State of California v. United States" Results 1241 - 1260 of 13,838
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2012, 12:03 pm by rhall@initiativelegal.com
But we believe that United States Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, and we are required to follow its binding authority. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 7:38 am by Jon Ibanez
The California Supreme Court, however, relied rather heavily on the rationale behind United States Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 2:12 pm by Jon Ibanez
The California Supreme Court, however, relied rather heavily on the rationale behind United States Supreme Court’s decision in Salinas. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 1:26 pm
As detailed in IntLawGrrls posts available here, California's Proposition 8 limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, but that ruling was stayed and the case is presently on appeal.Although in the United States marriage is within the province of state rather than federal law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, continues to define marriage as limited to opposite sex couples. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
Each state in the United States varies on whether a person may bring a wrongful death action when an unborn fetus dies as the result of someone’s negligent acts or omissions. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 9:39 am by Patricia Salkin
California Building Industry Assn. v City of San Jose, S212072 (June 15, 2015) involved Plaintiff trade association’s challenge to Defendant City’s ordinance to require developments containing 20 or more units to make 15% of those units available for low or moderate income purchase. [read post]
23 May 2010, 8:52 am by Michael
" The California county is home Toyota's United States headquarters, and will be the location of federal legal actions against the beleaguered auto maker. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 1:03 pm by Gregory B. Williams
Trend Micro Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 14-435-LPS (D.Del., January 16, 2015), the Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Northern District”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [read post]