Search for: "CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON"
Results 401 - 420
of 4,459
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2012, 11:27 am
The Frye standard is still used in a number of states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:27 am
The Frye standard is still used in a number of states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington. [read post]
12 Sep 2009, 11:03 pm
MGM v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 3:32 pm
California (Indian Gaming Compact, Breach of)Davilla v. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 3:06 pm
WHAT: Oral Argument in EFF and ACLU of Southern California v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 11:57 pm
The new cell phone search case, Riley v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 2:59 pm
AB 5 codifies the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 2:59 pm
AB 5 codifies the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
In addition, in cases such as Pike v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 6:11 am
” Further coverage of the decision is available in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog, Bloomberg, Politico, and Election Law Blog (also here). [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 4:25 pm
She represented Cherokee Nation in Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 1:18 pm
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. [read post]
7 Nov 2021, 9:41 am
The justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 6:19 am
This post examines an opinion from the Court of Appeals of Washington – Division 1: The Republic of Kazakhstan v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:17 pm
[Legal Juice] * King v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 1:52 pm
Nelson, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Washington almost exactly a year later, with this order: “Appeal from Sup. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 5:32 am
Many people are likely to continue calling them the “Washington team,” but in the wake of the Matal v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 6:58 pm
” It might seem obvious that here in Oregon, in Washington or anywhere else in the country companies have an obligation to ensure that the products they sell are safe and function properly, but manufacturers of unsafe medical devices gained unprecedented liability protection via the Supreme Court’s 2008 Riegel v Medtronic case. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 5:30 am
Marine v. [read post]
