When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. California Rancheria Termination Acts - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Rancheria...

    Mabel Duncan et al. v. the United States 597 F.2d 1337 found 18 April 1979 that the US government was liable for tribal damages. [41] On 2 December 1981 the judge confirmed federal liability for damages in Mabel Duncan et al. v. the United States 667 F.2d 36. [42] After the 1977 ruling, 153.22 acres of land were restored to the tribal trust. [6 ...

  3. US judge strikes down California ban on high-capacity gun ...

    www.aol.com/news/us-judge-strikes-down...

    U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said California's "sweeping ban" went too far by preventing people from using magazines for lawful purposes, including self-defense. "The history and ...

  4. Miller v. Bonta - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._Bonta

    In Duncan v. Becerra and Rhode v. Becerra, he struck down portions of 2016 California Proposition 63 that prohibited possession of high-capacity magazines and required background checks for ammunition purchases, respectively. The state appealed both decisions; [7] the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta was reversed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of ...

  5. 2016 California Proposition 63 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_California_Proposition_63

    The case Rhode v. Bonta, originally Rhode v. Becerra, is challenging Proposition 63's requirement for background checks to purchase ammunition as well as its prohibition against importation of ammunition into the state by residents, unless importation takes place through a licensed ammunition dealer.

  6. Roger Benitez - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Benitez

    This marked the second time Benitez had issued a similar opinion, having previously presided over Duncan v. Becerra and ruling in favor of the plaintiff(s) in 2019. [ 34 ] Unlike in his 2019 ruling, Benitez issued a 10-day stay on his second opinion in order to allow the State of California adequate time to appeal, which it promptly did later ...

  7. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Prosperity...

    Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta , 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations . The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of ...

  8. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Reports/B

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S...

    No. Page 1 Schlesinger v. Councilman: 2 Arkansas Best Corp. v. Commissioner: 3 Witmer v. United States: 4 Parisi v. Davidson: 5 Taylor v. Illinois: 6 Stansbury v.

  9. List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_court_cases...

    Two ADF cases, Geneva College v. Burwell and Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell were consolidated into Zubic and heard before the Supreme Court in 2016. The case addressed non-church coverage of mandated contraceptives under Obamacare. The individual cases were returned to the respective courts of appeal. [37]

  1. Related searches duncan et al v bonta johnson 3 d h e c c o u speakers

    duncan et al v bonta johnson 3 d h e c c o u speakers for saled h-e trucking