Search for: "California v. Arizona"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,988
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), California v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), California v. [read post]
4 Sep 2024, 11:57 am
As we previously reported, a few cases focused on tracking pixels in emails popped up late last year, based both on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the Arizona Law, and a new group of these cases has recently been filed accusing several companies, including Target (Smith v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 12:32 pm
§ 13-3925 Birchfield v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 12:53 pm
The case is Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 1:15 pm
by Kerry Shapiro As reported earlier this week in this blog, the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 1:27 pm
On June 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Sullivan v. [read post]
15 May 2018, 12:32 pm
§ 13-3925 Birchfield v. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 4:52 am
" The case, Arizona v. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 8:16 pm
Check the Arizona v. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 5:52 am
California, certifying that no arguable question of law was found. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 6:00 am
Felicia Kornbluh, "Turning Back the Clock: California Constitutionalists, Hearthstone Originalism, and BROWN V. [read post]
6 Jun 2015, 6:43 am
The facts in Stankova v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
One of the important Supreme Court cases currently being briefed (with oral argument set for March), Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
One of the important Supreme Court cases currently being briefed (with oral argument set for March), Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 11:38 am
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently vacated its prior ruling in Sullivan v. [read post]
26 Jan 2022, 3:20 pm
Next, we consider Arizona’s garnishment statutes. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 8:50 am
In State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 6:06 am
First, Arizona will not be able to justify the law on the grounds that it has only incidental effects on federal immigration policy; Second, it will be more difficult for Arizona to argue that the scope of its new law is not already occupied by the federal scheme and that the law does not interfere with federal law's balancing of the relative costs and benefits of adopting particular enforcement policies.The leading Supreme Court case on preemption of state immigration law, De… [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 5:54 pm
In the appointment letter, Kosinki designates Burns to “perform the duties of United States District Judge temporarily for the District of Arizona for the specific case United States of America v. [read post]