Search for: "Childs v. State of California (1983)"
Results 141 - 160
of 184
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2019, 9:01 pm
(The law and ruling are explained in detail here.)In the Indiana case, the Court cited a precedent from 1983, Akron v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
Petitioner Bostock worked for the Clayton County Juvenile Court System as a child welfare services coordinator. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
Mokwa, No. 07-3110 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by twenty-five protesters against St. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:28 am
United States, 461 U.S. 574, 604 n.30 (1983); McGowan v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 9:23 pm
Perry Local Educators Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983) — and in limited public fora. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Olhovsky, No. 07-1642 Sentence for possession of child pornography is reversed and remanded for resentencing where: 1) defendant's sentence was substantively unreasonable; and 2) the sentencing court erred as a matter of law in refusing to allow his treating psychologist to testify at the sentencing hearing. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 8:50 am
” State v. [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 8:11 am
Defendant's California conviction for grand theft from a person in violation of section 487(2) of the California Penal Code was a "violent felony" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 5:19 pm
§ 1983 in the absence of a government policy that causes the alleged harm? [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 10:34 am
Q: Where do I get a copy of Roe v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm
Some states require a physical impact or physical contact; and others do not recognize the cause of action at all.Blain v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 11:58 am
Medical Devices (Discovery): PAIN PATCH MAKER MUST REVEAL DATA IN CALIFORNIA DEATH SUIT, Standing v. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
In 1969, in Tinker v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
July 1, 1983). [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 7:42 am
Shaver v. [read post]
30 Oct 2007, 1:37 am
Geerken, No. 06-3987"A sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court's use of a U.S.S.G. application note's 75:1 ratio for determining the number of images contained within a single video was not arbitrary and did not result in an unreasonable sentence for defendant; and 2) the district court did not err when it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child pornography possessed by defendant not only depicted minors… [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:34 am
State v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:19 am
The United States Supreme Court held that a single violation of Brady obligations is not sufficient to create civil damages liabilities for a district attorney’s office under section 1983. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 8:05 pm
Five Justices in United States v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 12:35 pm
In United States v. [read post]
