Search for: "Young v. State of California"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,478
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2011, 6:32 am
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the State of California could make it illegal to sell or rent violent video games to children. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:40 pm
Brown v. [read post]
28 Apr 2023, 3:31 pm
–Kuklinski v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 3:07 pm
Citing Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in United States v. [read post]
23 Jun 2016, 5:27 am
Youngs Drug Products Corp. (1983). 4. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 6:45 am
The case is Jones v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
California, 505 U.S. 437, 439 (1992); see State v. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 10:32 am
On appeal to the supreme court of the state, the judgment was affirmed [. . .].'” 1921—Kirby v. [read post]
23 May 2010, 10:00 am
In Barhite v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
California law, as reflected in the 1978 California Supreme Court ruling in Schmitz v. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 9:15 am
United States, 2015 U.S. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 pm
The opinion is more or less mandated by United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 2:59 am
The post United States Supreme Court may address reasonableness of scope of seizure in Nevada v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 4:58 pm
In Vilchis v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:15 am
Or not....On December 10, the Beastie Boys filed an Answer and asserted counterclaims including copyright infringement, trade mark infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation of right of publicity (under California state law). [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 7:22 am
In principle, Ex Parte Young states that private persons can raise a federal law as a defense against state actions that are preempted by that law. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 6:44 am
California and, with Justice Souter joining, Zamudio v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:34 am
The Court goes on to state that last term’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
The case was Reynolds v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 1:37 pm
The federal law also says "knowingly" whereas the state law doesn't use that same word. [read post]
