Search for: "California v. Texas" Results 101 - 120 of 4,341
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2010, 8:13 am by Steve Hall
  The webpage is titled, "CDCR's December 8, 2010 Response to ACLU Public Records Act Request: ACLU v. [read post]
18 Aug 2019, 8:35 pm by Patent Docs
After the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland LLC v. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 5:04 am by Jean O'Grady
In 2018 Thomson Reuters offered state court analytics on Westlaw Edge including California and Texas. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 8:53 am by Gritsforbreakfast
This morning I've been reading the oral arguments (pdf)  from Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 4:55 am
Texas, California, personal jurisdiction, the place of the wrong. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:30 am
These facts support deference to California's stronger interest (see Flintkote Co. v American Mut. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 6:42 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here: Ysleta Cert Petition Question presented: Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act’s legislative history, and this Court’s holding in California v. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 10:37 am by JAntonelli
Strike 3 Holdings LLC filed in 12 states in September, including New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, California, Texas, Washington, DC and Colorado. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 11:20 am by Nyanza Moore
Texas Farmers Insurance Company,1 the insured lived in California and it was too inconvenient to fly to Texas for the examination. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 11:21 am by Robert Vrana
Plaintiff Cradle IP was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California, while Defendant Texas Instruments was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Texas. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 2:01 pm by Kent Scheidegger
§ 1983 challenging Section 647(b) of the California Penal Code, which criminalizes the commercial exchange of sexual activity.The panel first rejected plaintiffs' assertion that Lawrence v. [read post]