Search for: "In re S.B." Results 81 - 100 of 170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2009, 5:11 am
That rule is consistent with existing law, including the California Supreme Court's prior holding in In re Marriage Cases [43 Cal.4th 757 (Cal. 2008)] that California cannot treat marriages differently based on whether they were performed in state or out of state. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 12:39 pm by Orin Kerr
Under Garrison, the officers have to stop searching when they have reason to believe they’re in the wrong place. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 2:19 pm by Sheldon Toplitt
Res. 339, that expresses the sentiment that the Supreme Court should permit live tv access to open sessions. [read post]
19 May 2016, 10:01 am by Sasha Volokh
Consider the consequences of the opposite rule—one that would say you’re entitled to pension formulas that existed on the day you were hired. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm by Tom Goldstein
The Court did not take center stage by deciding the constitutional challenges we are watching most closely:  the cases involving the health care reform statute, Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law, or the upcoming dispute on California’s Proposition 8 on gay marriage.  [read post]
14 Sep 2021, 5:27 am by Phil Dixon
” That is, the re-creation of the chemicals from scratch in a lab? [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 8:10 am by Walter Olson
” McAffrey’s S.B. 1872 would also attach a new $5 processing fee to the tickets, of which a portion would be shared with the ticketing officer’s department. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 5:36 pm
These cases held unconstitutional the state's restrictions on city residency requirements enacted by S.B. 82 in 2006. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 8:18 am
That could change soon: we're closely watching state-level legislation such as S.B. 573 that would create statewide rules for open data, including the creation of a formal Chief Data Officer position that would write formal open data guidelines in consultation with the attorney general. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 8:30 am by By Alessandra Soler, ACLU of Arizona
The governor must re-examine her support for Senate Bill 1070, which is nothing more than state-sanctioned discrimination. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 3:22 am by SHG
” In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 866 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 2017). [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:30 pm by Lyle Denniston
So this is not a case about ethnic profiling.”  The Solicitor General answered: “We’re not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in this case.” Although no observer could be sure what motivated Roberts to make that point, he was either trying to keep that question out of the case because it would remain an issue in lower courts, or else he was seeking to head off criticism that, if the Court did allow Arizona to enforce S.B. 1070, the Court… [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 2:40 pm by Jeff Gittins
"  All such re-classified organizations would then become subject to governmental regulatory laws such as the "Open and Public Meetings Act," the "Government Records Access and Management Act" (GRAMA), and other governmental reporting acts. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 5:19 am by Jon Hyman
This example is much more common than the workplace sexual predator that the opponents of S.B. 383 hold out as the standard bearer. [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 4:52 pm by Tracy Coenen
What can you do if you’re in favor of keeping the strong anti-SLAPP law in Nevada? [read post]