California Constitutional Law Court Decisions 
Constitutional Law Reporter
APRIL 22, 2025
Supreme Court held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) counts as a final proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Courts decision was unanimous. Supreme Courts Decision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 9-0.
Constitutional Law Reporter
APRIL 1, 2025
One prohibits the facility from making any discharge that contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters, while the other provides that the City cannot perform any treatment or make any discharge that create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California Water Code section 13050.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Constitutional Law Reporter
MAY 29, 2024
Sheetz filed suit, alleging that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. In support, Sheetz argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n , 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JUNE 5, 2023
Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a California animal welfare law that requires pork sold in the state to come from humanely raised pigs. According to the Court, the law did not violate the dormant commerce clause in regulating the pork industry outside California.
Broadcast Law Blog
MARCH 16, 2017
The Florida case has been referred to that state’s highest court for an advisory ruling on the state of the state’s law on the issue, and earlier this week, the same thing happened in California. A decision on this issue in any state is binding only in that state.
Constitutional Law Reporter
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
Because Yegiazaryan has lived in California since 2010, Smagin, who lives in Russia, filed suit to confirm and enforce the award in the Central District of California pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court affirmed.
Constitutional Law Reporter
MARCH 26, 2025
One prohibits the facility from making any discharge that contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters, while the other provides that the City cannot perform any treatment or make any discharge that create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California Water Code section 13050.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content