Search for: "WILLIAMS v. CALIFORNIA" Results 41 - 60 of 2,629
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Mar 2019, 9:57 pm by William W. Abbott
William Abbott is a shareholder at Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 5:22 am by Lyle Denniston
The issue could return to the Supreme Court; the Court’s prior ruling in the Virginia case, Williams v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am by Katherine Kelley
Since Brookings published the report in May 2016, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, and Utah have all criminalized sextortion. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 6:12 pm by Richard Hunt
Mar. 6, 2019) dismissed a claim under California’s Unruh Act that was based on the same facts as the plaintiff’s claim under the ADA. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
The answer is yes, and the Supreme Court effectively made that clear four years ago in its important ruling in Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 6:21 pm by Indian Legal Program
I had the privilege of serving my own tribal community, the Quechan Indian Tribe as their Chief Judge for the last 12 years and have just finished my first year as the Chief Judge for the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.Christine Williams: I was appointed to my first Chief Judge Position in 2010 for the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians in California. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 11:29 am by Peter Margulies
The March 6 decision by Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California in California v. [read post]
9 Mar 2019, 9:33 am by Sarah Grant
Trump, in the Central District of California. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:50 pm by Ilya Somin
Judge Orrick followed these and other federal court decisions in ruling that Section 1373 is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Murphy v. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 5:42 am by Eugene Volokh
Coble, as well as my student Sara Williams—so arguing, and urging the Ohio Supreme Court to hear the case (Rasawehr v. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 4:16 am by Lev Sugarman
Pildes unpacked the implications of the 1983 INS v. [read post]