Search for: "Horton v. California"
Results 101 - 120
of 208
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2014, 4:00 am
Horton v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 11:21 pm
Brown (1983) 460 U.S. 730, 740, overruled on another point in Horton v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 11:56 am
Horton as inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 11:33 am
In Reyes v. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 6:18 am
Horton. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
The California Supreme Court concurred with Judge Ikuta on this point in Iskanian v. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 12:28 pm
The following contribution to our arbitration symposium is by David Horton. [read post]
16 May 2011, 11:29 am
(quoting Horton v. [read post]
10 Mar 2013, 12:01 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
Mount v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 10:44 am
Horton decision. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm
Olsen Earlier this week, the California Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Iskanian v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 10:41 am
But note that in Strauss v. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 5:45 am
Horton. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 8:18 am
Posted by Sabrina ShadiAfter the California Supreme Court decided Gentry v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 8:13 am
Justice Moreno dissented in Strauss v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 11:00 pm
Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009). [read post]
21 May 2018, 12:34 pm
Murphy Oil USA and Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:52 am
The California Supreme Court swiftly followed suit in Strauss v Horton, upholding the passage of Proposition 8, but applying that referendum prospectively, thereby preserving the approximately 18,000 marriages that had been performed prior to the passage of the referendum; and perhaps unwittingly creating an arbitrary class of persons to which other gays can point in an equal protection analysis. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:03 am
The California Supreme Court swiftly followed suit in Strauss v Horton, upholding the passage of Proposition 8, but applying that referendum prospectively, thereby preserving the approximately 18,000 marriages that had been performed prior to the passage of the referendum; and perhaps unwittingly creating an arbitrary class of persons to which other gays can point in an equal protection analysis. [read post]
