Search for: "Williams v. State of California (1983)"
Results 141 - 160
of 168
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2008, 3:49 pm
Pruitt, No. 06-6002 Given the particular characteristics of North Carolina sentencing law, in light of recent United States Supreme Court precedent, in determining whether to apply the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, a federal court must take into account the defendant's state criminal history (or lack thereof) at the time of his predicate North Carolina convictions. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
App. 1985); Williams v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 5:17 pm
State of Tennessee, No. 06-6208 In civil rights suit alleging that city police discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the Ame [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:06 pm
Beard, No. 07-3711 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit by prison inmates challenging the confiscation of legal materials by state corrections officials, dismissals of some claims and summary judgment for defendants on the remainder are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury in their claim of loss of access to the courts; 2) defendants demonstrated a legitimate governmental interest in stopping inmates from filing fraudulent liens and judgments against… [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:43 pm
Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238, until rendered moot by the California Supreme Court decision in People v. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 10:48 am
The court ordered briefing deferred pending the next decision of the United States Supreme Court in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
State of California, 72 Cal. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 12:19 pm
State, 73 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2000) ............................................................................ 15 California First Amendment Coalition v. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 4:16 am
" (Gregg v. [read post]
28 Jun 2008, 11:06 pm
Williams, H. [read post]
27 May 2008, 10:06 am
Davis, No. 06-666 In the context of states/subdivisions' exemption of interest on their own bonds from their state income taxes, which are imposed on bond interest from other states, the Court rules that Kentucky's version of such a differential tax scheme does not offend the Commerce Clause. [read post]
27 May 2008, 9:50 am
Williams, No. 06-694 A statute criminalizing, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography is neither overbroad under the First Amendment nor impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause. [read post]
19 May 2008, 8:55 am
Rutter, No. 06-1473 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging plaintiff's placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation, dismissal pursuant to section 1997e(c) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing a due process claim on the ground that the duration of plaintiff's prison discipline, three years and… [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Williams, No. 07-1354 The interstate transport of a minor for prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(a) constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines. [read post]
29 Apr 2008, 7:13 am
City of New York , No. 06-1983 Read more... [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
" Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 9:47 am
Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, No. 05-4200 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by an anonymous plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from aspects of Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, or Megan's Law, a judgment finding that the treatment of out-of-state offenders under the law violates the Equal Protection Clause is affirmed where: 1) although Pennsylvania's interest in protecting its citizens from sexually… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Bornhorst, No. 06-3729 "In a suit raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and for state law malicious prosecution, defamation, and tortious interference with a prospective contract, summary judgment for defendants on all claims is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's arrest for murder was unsupported by probable cause, and thus defendant-prosecutor was not entitled to qualified immunity; 2) the district court erred… [read post]
