Search for: "State of California v. United States"
Results 1301 - 1320
of 12,568
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2019, 9:17 am
Both place their faith in the state, and in the community, to be sure. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 1:41 pm
Especially when the matter is relatively unimportant (at least in the scheme of things) and it's more critical to have a solid, articulated rule than it is for that rule to be precisely right.Right or wrong, until the United States Supreme Court speaks, or until Congress amends the statute, the rule in California is now clear. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 5:35 am
California and United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 1:12 pm
United States, 98 Fed. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 1:41 pm
ShareMore than 80 amicus briefs were filed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
25 May 2020, 7:37 am
In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 11:06 am
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of plaintiffs to pursue nationwide class actions in state court. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 8:31 pm
The California Court of Appeal noted that it “must follow the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 9:00 am
The decision is reported as United States of America, et al. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 8:14 am
").SB 260 will also violate the "Dormant Commerce Clause" of the United States Constitution. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 12:44 pm
The Fifth Circuit Upholds an Overbroad Cell Phone Search In United States v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 12:05 pm
United States, 18-6859, and Santos v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 10:34 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 9:01 pm
United States and Printz v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
HamiltonCase number: 12-cv-0445 (United States District Court for the Southern District of California)Case filed: February 21, 2012Qualifying Judgment/Order: March 28, 2013 4/15/2013 7/15/2013 2013-34 SEC v. [read post]
22 Nov 2006, 3:56 am
By granting review in yet another state sentencing case, California v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. [read post]
12 Oct 2012, 5:01 am
In June 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone because it likely infringed Apple's 8,086,604 patent (the "'604 patent") and because Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 8:45 am
Hasen (University of California, Irvine School of Law) has posted The 2012 Voting Wars, Judicial Backstops, And the Resurrection of Bush V. [read post]
