Search for: "State v. Nave" Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jun 2010, 3:51 am
United States Supreme Court holds city’s review of employee messages on city pager was reasonable under the circumstances Source: Meyers Nave PLC. [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 7:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
California Supreme Court opens door for state reimbursing local agencies for unfunded mandatesDepartment of Finance v Commission on State Mandates, California Supreme Court, S214855Source: Meyers Nave Legal Alert A Meyers Nave Internet Newsletter reports that on August 29, 2016 the California Supreme Court handed a victory to local agencies that are seeking to enforce their constitutional right to reimbursement for unfunded mandates imposed by the… [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Law):Neil Weinstock Netanel, Introduction to: From Maimonides to Microsoft: The Jewish Law of Copyright Since the Birth of Print, (Oxford University Press 2016).Asim Jusic, SAS v. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 4:28 pm
Prison officials permitted him to use his religious name along with his commitment name for mail purposes.In Naves v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 11:29 am
" “The Court's decision relied in part on the United States Supreme Court's ruling in City of San Diego v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 2:41 pm by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
- Gideon Kanner's takedown of the recent California Court of Appeal decision in City of Los Angeles v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
10 Dec 2020, 10:23 am by Amy Howe
The three men – Muhummad Tanvir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari – are all U.S. citizens or green card holders. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
In the Intercept, Glenn Greenwald draws attention to the fact that Amazon is itself involved in the building of a surveillance state. [read post]
5 Sep 2006, 5:20 pm
Y ojo, que esto es bravo: "Some criticize you for implicitly making constitutional law, but without stating your reasons. [read post]