Search for: "United States v. City and County of San Francisco"
Results 141 - 160
of 374
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2019, 1:50 pm
For fiscal year, 2018, the Justice Department nonetheless sought to impose slightly revised versions of the same three conditions, plus two new ones, summarized in today's ruling by Judge William Orrick of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, in a case brought against the administration by the City and County of San Francisco, and the state of California: The nondisclosure condition provides that: Consistent with the… [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 9:47 am
The same is true for employers in other states (Massachusetts, Delaware, and Oregon) and cities (New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia) that have passed similar legislation. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 1:05 pm
NYC, Philadelphia, and San Francisco: DOD, you must comply. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 11:28 am
San Francisco. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 7:41 pm
City of San Diego, S238563. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:45 pm
The case is Save Lafayette Trees v. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
County of San Diego (September 28, 2018, case no. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 8:30 am
Drug Enforcement Administration and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California on a drug enforcement operation. [read post]
26 Sep 2018, 7:17 am
City and County of San Francisco, that statute incorporates rules of issue and claim preclusion, such that parties generally cannot relitigate in federal court issues already decided in state court. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 4:37 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2018) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 11:14 am
Protect Niles v. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 4:21 pm
City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014). [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:40 pm
PG&E owns and operates the Diablo Canyon plant, a two-unit nuclear power plant on 750-acres of land also owned by PG&E near Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:05 am
Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, he notes that the court has recognized that the amendment’s purpose “is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:03 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643, 663-671; Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:20 pm
Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 776; Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 9:38 am
Ill.) may yield an answer -- unless the housing authority changes its policy, as San Francisco and Warren County (Illinois) had done. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 1:25 pm
In the 2005 case of San Remo Hotel v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 4:06 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 956, emph. added by Court, internal quotes omitted.) [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261. [read post]
