Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Supreme Court Historical Society (CSCHS) describes itself as "a non-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to recovering, preserving, and promoting California’s legal and judicial history, with a particular emphasis on the State’s highest court." [1] It is chaired by Patricia Guerrero, the chief justice of California. [2]
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press.The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book's content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. [1]
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
Here, the court concluded that the shield law protections did not differentiate between newsgathering for print or online media, thereby holding that the online publishers could not be held in contempt for refusing to divulge the identity of the sources who provided them with confidential information.
(The Center Square) - A federal court partially blocked a California law restricting social media access for minors, blocking its ban on social media notifications for minors during certain hours ...
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States voided a Los Angeles city ordinance which forbade the distribution of any handbills in any place under any circumstances if the handbills did not contain the name and address of the person for whom it was prepared, distributed, or sponsored.
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person. [1]
The litigation, filed directly in the California Supreme Court in an unusual move, comes as advocates have grown increasingly frustrated by the documented inability of many courts to find and hire ...