Search for: "Childs v. State of California (1983)"
Results 81 - 100
of 181
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, No. 05-4200 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by an anonymous plaintiff seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from aspects of Pennsylvania's Registration of Sexual Offenders Act, or Megan's Law, a judgment finding that the treatment of out-of-state offenders under the law violates the Equal Protection Clause is affirmed where: 1) although Pennsylvania's interest in protecting its citizens from sexually… [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 11:51 am
California Appellate Districts, April 09, 2008 Salma v. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 12:35 pm
” Challengers argue that the law is impermissibly extraterritorial because virtually all the pork consumed in California is raised outside the state. [read post]
19 May 2016, 6:02 pm
Today, the Supreme Court of California in Winn v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
California State Council of Carpenters (1983) has standing to sue under federal antitrust laws. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 4:45 am
California was not objectively unreasonable; 2) a state court properly denied a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during trial; 3) counsel's decision to concede petitioner's guilt during the sentencing phase of the trial was not objectively unreasonable under federal law; and 4) a state court's determination that a trial court did not improperly exclude mitigating evidence was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 3:06 pm
California Appellate Districts, December 16, 2008 Arcadia Dev. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 8:46 am
Phillips, No. 07-0522 Grant of habeas petition ordering conviction be vacated based on state's Brady violation is vacated in part as to barring of retrial of count of depraved indifference murder as petitioner had not exhausted his state remedies with respect to that relief. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Epps, No. 0860652 In an Eight Amendment challenge to lethal injection as the method of execution for two death-row inmates, rulings that the applicable statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' section 1983 action and grant of summary judgment to defendant are affirmed where: 1) under Wilson v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 9:01 am
Dist. of California, 705 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983) ("We thus find that the public and press have a first amendment right of access to pretrial documents in general. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am
Iskanian, 14-341 allows us to linger a bit longer in California. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 6:30 am
Legal abortion obviously conveys a “benefit” in a comparative sense: not abortion as an absolute good but legal abortion as compared to a back-alley butcher or to state-enforced child-bearing. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:29 pm
California Appellate Districts, August 19, 2008 Zumbrun Law Firm v. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 pm
§ 1983 for malicious prosecution. [read post]
14 May 2013, 2:36 pm
Last up, out of the California Court of Appeals, is Fernandez v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:46 am
After losing in the trial and appellate courts, petitioners seek cert. on the issue of “[w]hether the Commerce Clause allows California to impose a complete ban on the sale of wholesome USDA-approved poultry products from other States and countries … based solely on the agricultural methods used by out-of-state farmers who raise their animals entirely beyond California’s borders. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 3:29 am
Among the 707 cases, only six prosecutors — 0.8% — were disciplined by the State Bar of California. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm
Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441, 479, 194 Cal.Rptr. 390, 668 P.2d 697 (1983) (emphasis added). [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Goff, No. 05-5524 A sentence of four months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a fine, for possessing hundreds of electronic images of child pornography is vacated and remanded for resentencing where the district court's sentence was not reasonable in light of the circumstances of the case. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 7:08 am
The question in Perry v. [read post]
