Search for: "Clark v. State of California"
Results 1 - 20
of 559
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2014, 9:02 pm
Clark, a recent case from the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of a short-barreled shotgun. [read post]
15 May 2017, 2:16 pm
The Lewises sued Clarke in his individual capacity in state court. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 3:13 pm
(Keeton v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:42 am
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Robert T. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 12:59 pm
In Regents of Univ. of Cal., an individual brought suit against the University of California, a public university of the State of California, for breach of contract related to his employment at a laboratory operated by the university pursuant to a contract with the Federal Government. [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 9:46 am
Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 11:05 am
Davidson v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 9:56 am
As the Court of Appeal gleefully (at least for me) explains in a footnote:"Kinney is no longer licensed by the State Bar of California. [read post]
17 May 2017, 8:00 am
Clarke, the U.S. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 12:53 pm
Clark, (ED CA, Jan. 31, 2017), a California federal district court may have opened a new route for state prisoners in California to obtain damages or equitable relief for free exercise infringements. [read post]
24 May 2018, 4:42 pm
Whitt v. [read post]
1 May 2017, 10:00 pm
The case, filed May 1, 2017, isEagles Ltd v Hotel California Baja LLC et al, U.S. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 10:13 pm
v=YZcyMgdWmPg. [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:03 pm
California law on the issue is indeed unclear. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 1:00 pm
Finisar v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 3:03 pm
Boyd v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 3:49 pm
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Forfeiture After Giles:The Relevance Of “Domestic Violence Context”, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 711 (2009) Giles v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
The State’s suggestion, p. 18 pf the reply brief, that the statement’s “primary purpose” is not prosecutorial because it was informal should be rejected on grounds already indicated in Davis v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
The State’s suggestion, p. 18 pf the reply brief, that the statement’s “primary purpose” is not prosecutorial because it was informal should be rejected on grounds already indicated in Davis v. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
Several cases from California show that state law can still control. [read post]
