Search for: "STATE OF CAL., ETC. v. United States"
Results 161 - 180
of 182
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2009, 3:39 pm
And not only that, but there is a 1988 federal United States Supreme Court case, Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 9:29 am
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)); Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 3:27 am
United Parcel Service, No. 08-60448 (5th Cir. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 3:27 pm
According to a report issued by the CDC this morning, not only did 2007 see the largest number of children born ever in the United States (4,317,119), but the percentage of children born out out wedlock reached an all-time high as well: 40%. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 10:36 pm
United States, 216 F.R.D. 478, 480 (D. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 2:06 pm
One of the things we have seen in modern criminal law (especially in the United States) is a tendency to divide crimes up into parts, so that you can be charged for (and convicted of) each part. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 8:09 pm
WILLIAMS, 2005 Cal. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 12:23 pm
Cal. 2003). [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 6:07 am
If the high court takes this case, an interesting question is posed: Can participating in a fantasy baseball league require Unites States Supreme Court judges to recuse themselves? [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 1:04 pm
[The Rhode Island Supreme Court case cited in the briefs is State of Rhode Island v. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 4:43 pm
Jan. 7, 2008) On Monday, January 7, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara L. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 3:59 pm
Discovery Communications, Inc., 101 P.3d 552, 562 (Cal. 2004), and Shulman v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 3:47 pm
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). [read post]
27 Jul 2007, 5:30 pm
Suzuki v. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 10:13 pm
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and now the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 1:30 pm
Rather, it's more like an otherwise intelligent person who currently believes -- for whatever reason -- that the law is X even though anyone (even a moron) with any sort of legal training would realize that the law is clearly not X and is instead Y.For example, what if I -- an otherwise bright person -- were to suddenly become convinced that the 17th Amendment granted me ownership of every red Lexus in the United States. [read post]
27 Jan 2007, 11:09 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2007, 11:48 am
Firearms offenses, etc. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 5:23 am
Under United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2006, 10:12 pm
In the Matter of the Application of the United States for a Search Warrant, U.S. [read post]
