Search for: "Goldstein v. California"
Results 421 - 440
of 560
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2009, 7:07 am
He cites the Brown v. [read post]
18 May 2013, 12:52 pm
Arzoumanian v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 7:08 am
., v. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:17 am
Commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
14 May 2013, 2:36 pm
Last up, out of the California Court of Appeals, is Fernandez v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 7:28 am
Department of Agriculture, and (2) whether the California Unclaimed Property Law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it deprives owners of th [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm
California "clearly establish[es]," for purposes of habeas corpus review of state-court judgments under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
24 May 2016, 5:04 pm
Carpenter 15-1193Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.Issue: (1) Whether a court must categorically deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion premised on the change in decisional law produced by Martinez v. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 10:53 am
In fact, in Javier v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 6:50 am
Husted 16-1068 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 8:29 am
Cooper v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 7:53 am
SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein examines the Term’s pattern of opinion assignments and finds it “quite likely . . . that Justice Stevens was originally going to author the Court’s opinion in Bilski [v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am
The petition asked whether the California Supreme Court violates the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances by barring prisoners represented in name only from making pro se filings. [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 6:00 am
City of Bakersfield, California v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 7:01 am
National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 7:40 am
Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 7:59 am
(Harris v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 6:48 am
[Disclosure: Goldstein, Howe & Russell filed an amicus brief in support of the respondent in the case.] [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 8:56 am
Independent Living Center of Southern California, Maples v. [read post]
