Search for: "Oregon & California R. Co. v. United States No. 2"
Results 1 - 20
of 73
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2015, 1:00 am
Tucker served as lead counsel in both Glucksberg v Washington and Quill v NY, which raised federal constitutional claims seeking to establish the right; both cases were heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in the mid-1990s. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm
Draper proposes that the voters of the state adopt a measure that would: (1) “[e]stablish new boundaries for three new states within the boundaries of the [current] State of California; (2) [e]stablish a procedure for the transformation of the single State of California into three new states; and (3) [p]rovide the legislative consent for the formation of three new states to Congress as required by the Constitution… [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 10:48 am
The court ordered briefing deferred pending the next decision of the United States Supreme Court in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 11:48 am
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon upheld a state law placing a temporary ban on the use of motorized equipment for mining in Oregon riverbeds and banks. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
As to interstate federalism, some states (and their representatives in DC) might be reluctant to reduce their current relative voice in the federal government, a consequence that would result from increasing California’s share in the Senate from 2% (two out of 100) to 11% (12 out of 110, because six states would mean 12 Senators under the federal Constitution’s command that the “Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 11:48 am
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon upheld a state law placing a temporary ban on the use of motorized equipment for mining in Oregon riverbeds and banks. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
Co. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm
Co. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 8:05 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 11:15 am
Grace & Co. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:59 am
At MaumeeBayState Park in Oregon (Lucas Co.), Gov. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
Co., 676 F.3d at 1096. [read post]
23 Dec 2018, 7:53 am
TSI is incorporated under the laws of California, and is a Washington licensed debt collection agency. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Supreme Court in Decker v. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 2:46 pm
(in support of the petition) Brief amicus curiae of United States (recommending denial of certiorari) __________________ Docket: 07-512 Case name: Pacific Bell Telephone Co., dba AT&T California v. linkLine Communications Issue: Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a "price squeeze" claim if the defendant has no duty to deal. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
California State Council of Carpenters (1983) has standing to sue under federal antitrust laws. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
Two separate classes of landowners are included in the suit as well as the United States. [read post]
22 May 2013, 6:09 am
These questions have not been clearly resolved in this particular context under United States law. [read post]
