Search for: "United States v. California"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 12,650
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2024, 2:04 pm
Pena v. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
United States, by Judith V. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 6:30 am
State v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 3:10 pm
Supreme Court case of United States ex rel Touhy v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 5:15 pm
Common Law Disclosure Requirements A 1963 decision by a California appellate court, Lingsch v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 5:15 pm
Common Law Disclosure Requirements A 1963 decision by a California appellate court, Lingsch v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 9:00 am
The decision is reported as United States of America, et al. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 7:22 am
The California trial court granted the motion and the appellate court affirmed. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 10:34 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
The California Supreme Court in People v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 6:48 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has spoken. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 7:50 am
The issue in Martel v. [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 12:53 pm
In Bridgeford, the court adopted the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Smith v. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 4:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 9:41 am
” Later, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for arbitration of all of McGill’s claims based on the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 11:30 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 5:15 pm
" Then, Chief Judge Lippman wrote that there is no material difference between the California statute struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Cunningham v California (549 US 270 [2007]) "and our persistent felony offender sentencing statutes. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 9:40 am
See, e.g., United States of America v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 12:58 pm
In United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2023, 9:33 am
” On October 17, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Southwest Airlines Co. v. [read post]
