Search for: "State v. Pineda"
Results 121 - 140
of 179
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 May 2011, 12:39 pm
The Court appears to be holding Pineda-Moreno v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 9:14 am
Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 1:30 pm
” However, in February 2011, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Pineda v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 3:37 am
An award of $111,000 was entered in favor the Pinedas, which State Farm promptly paid. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 3:50 am
The Supreme Court first confronted the use of devices to monitor vehiclular movment in United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:00 am
A rash of class action suits have been filed following a recent ruling by California Supreme Court in Pineda v. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 4:53 pm
In United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 11:29 am
See United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 8:02 am
Pineda-Moreno, 2010 U.S. [read post]
17 May 2012, 4:45 am
See Pineda v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 5:46 pm
BISHOP, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
6 May 2009, 5:49 pm
And in Pineda v. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 12:11 pm
EthiopiaDoe I v. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:57 pm
"In Pineda v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 9:03 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:58 am
Redmond v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 7:14 am
On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pineda v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 11:46 am
Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 6:06 pm
However, invariably judges will be asked to interpret these regulations - and as a recent California court case shows, their decisions may be unsettling.In Pineda v. [read post]
