Search for: "Childs v. State of California (1983)"
Results 121 - 140
of 157
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2019, 9:46 am
Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 1:15 pm
That was the ruling in U.S. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 9:01 pm
(The law and ruling are explained in detail here.)In the Indiana case, the Court cited a precedent from 1983, Akron v. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 11:22 am
One child was hospitalized. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Petitioner Bostock worked for the Clayton County Juvenile Court System as a child welfare services coordinator. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:28 am
United States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 n.30 (1983); McGowan v. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
Mokwa, No. 07-3110 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by twenty-five protesters against St. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Olhovsky, No. 07-1642 Sentence for possession of child pornography is reversed and remanded for resentencing where: 1) defendant's sentence was substantively unreasonable; and 2) the sentencing court erred as a matter of law in refusing to allow his treating psychologist to testify at the sentencing hearing. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 8:50 am
” State v. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Defendant's California conviction for grand theft from a person in violation of section 487(2) of the California Penal Code was a "violent felony" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 pm
§ 1983 in the absence of a government policy that causes the alleged harm? [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 10:34 am
Q: Where do I get a copy of Roe v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
Some states require a physical impact or physical contact; and others do not recognize the cause of action at all.Blain v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 11:58 am
Medical Devices (Discovery): PAIN PATCH MAKER MUST REVEAL DATA IN CALIFORNIA DEATH SUIT, Standing v. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
In 1969, in Tinker v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
July 1, 1983). [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:34 am
State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:19 am
The United States Supreme Court held that a single violation of Brady obligations is not sufficient to create civil damages liabilities for a district attorney’s office under section 1983. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 12:35 pm
In United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Horn, No. 03-9010, 03-9011 In a capital-murder case, petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) the time period for filing the petition was tolled during state-court proceedings, and the federal petition was therefore timely; 2) the state fugitive-forfeiture rule did not apply to procedurally default the petition; 3) the jury instructions and verdict sheet that were used during the penalty phase of petitioner's trial denied him due process of law pursuant to… [read post]
