Search for: "United States v. California"
Results 1821 - 1840
of 13,833
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2014, 3:00 am
Vogle v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 9:28 am
In Edwards Lifesciences v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 9:28 am
In Edwards Lifesciences v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 9:28 am
In Edwards Lifesciences v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:15 pm
Arguing for California, Deputy Attorney General Robin Urbanski jumped right to the heart of the state’s position: Although the California Supreme Court did provide an “adjudication on the merits,” that adjudication was not its conclusion that the trial court violated Batson (and its California state law analogue); rather, it was its determination that any Batson error was “harmless. [read post]
23 May 2015, 9:45 am
Additional Resources: California Farm Union Confronts DC Opposition, May 12, 2015, Daily Caller More Blog Entries: Arlington v. [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 10:11 am
District Court for the Northern District of California (California v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 9:35 am
On August 21, 2018, Petitioner “filed a Hague case in the State of California. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 6:48 am
The business owner must prove, among other things, that the police are unwilling or unable to provide assistance, and other grounds that do not apply to the issuance of trespass injunctions generally.Here is the money quote:Accordingly, as applied in this case, the Moscone Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 1:37 pm
Medinger Source of Law: United StatesLegal Claims: OtherCourt Name: United States District Court for the District of MarylandLegal Counsel: Ezra Gollogly; Paul A. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:33 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:33 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 12:06 pm
He's stationed at the United States Naval Air Station at Lemoore, California. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 10:13 am
The court explains: California law does not categorically state that a contract can never be formed on the basis of browsewrap. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 1:33 pm
United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949) (holding that, in a close case, erroneously admitted evidence -- even if cumulative of other evidence -- can 'tip the scales' against the defendant) and Hawkins v. [read post]
10 Feb 2022, 2:39 pm
California Institute of Technology v. [read post]
21 Mar 2007, 5:10 am
Because we focus here on the cy près distribution of unclaimed settlement proceeds, we note only that following a 1999 federal court trial of state and federal antitrust actions, the district court found against Microsoft, see United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 10:40 am
Jude Riata wires remain active in United States patients. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:40 pm
California State Lands Commission (Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Real Party in Interest) (2018) ____ Cal.App.5th _____. [read post]
