Search for: "Smith v. California"
Results 1841 - 1860
of 2,261
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jul 2010, 2:27 pm
In Narayan v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 9:13 am
ACLU says California DNA law violates privacy [San Francisco Chronicle] Haskell v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 7:09 am
Bollinger and Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
11 Jul 2010, 11:55 pm
California Coastal Commission and the "rough proportionality" test of Dolan v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:35 pm
California, 274 U.S. 357, 374 (1927). [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:56 pm
E.g., Smith v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 1:09 pm
SMITH AT (760) 326-9200. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 6:31 am
(IP Law Blog) US Copyright – Decisions District Court C D California: Politico’s use of Henley songs copyright infringement - not fair use: Henley v Devore (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) 8th Cir: Famous Dave’s magic words: copyright assig [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 6:02 pm
(IP Law Blog) US Copyright – Decisions District Court C D California: Politico’s use of Henley songs copyright infringement – not fair use: Henley v Devore (Copyright Litigation Blog) (Electronic Frontier Foundation) 8th Cir: Famous Dave’s magic words: copyright assignments and settlement agreements: Thomsen v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 8:17 am
” “This decision and its predecessor — the District of Columbia v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:55 pm
Perry blocked the video transmission of the “Proposition 8” trial over gay marriage in California. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 5:47 pm
Abu-Jamal, 08-652.In a separate case, the Supreme Court again reinstated the conviction of a California woman for shaking her 7-week-old grandson in a case that has become a tug of war with the federal appeals court in San Francisco.Shirley Ree Smith was convicted in December 1997 and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.After California appeals courts ruled against Smith, the 9th U.S. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 3:55 pm
A conscious or intentional act is required.In Smith v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 7:05 pm
When Schwartz responded that a California statute left intact vacancy control, Kozinski cut him off with "the real answer is 'no,' Pennell is not applicable. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 2:03 pm
” Wieder v. [read post]
12 Jun 2010, 8:45 pm
Here is a portion of what Kagan had to say in the memo:In the case, Smith v. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 9:44 am
Smith v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:13 pm
Smith v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:23 am
Sounds sanctionable, said the Ninth Circuit in Bappi Lahiri v. [read post]
