Ads
related to: city of glendale court records los angeles a r v g and r 2003 ukhl 50 anniversary- Court Case Records
Get Info On Any Public Court Case
Reveal Incriminating Details Today!
- Public Court Records
See Public Public Court Records
Millions Of Citizens. Search Today!
- Criminal Court Records
See If Anyone Has Been To Court
Browse Up To Date Court Records
- County Court Records
Easily Search Court Records Online
Just Enter A Name & Choose A State
- State Court Record Search
Search Our Database For Court Info
Answer Your Burning Questions Now!
- Court Criminal Check
Court Records, Millions Of Citizens
Available In Our Database. Search
- Court Case Records
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In addition, computer software is not considered a public record, while data and statistics collected (whether collected knowingly or unknowingly) by a government authority whose powers derive from the laws of California are public records (such as license plate reader images) pursuant to EFF & ACLU of Southern California v. Los Angeles Police ...
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the plaintiff, Adolph Lyons, lacked standing to challenge the Los Angeles city police department's use of chokeholds.
American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain regulations imposed by City of Los Angeles on trucking companies were preempted by federal law. [1]
R v G [a] [2003] is an English criminal law ruling on reckless damage, for which various offences it held that the prosecution must show a defendant subjectively appreciated a particular risk existing or going to exist to the health or property of another, and the damaging consequence, but carried on in the circumstances known to him unreasonably taking the risk.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court.The court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.