LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
v.
UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORP.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORP.
525 U.S. 1121
Supreme Court of the United States (1999)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (U.S. 2000)…at 1446, and that “Congress did not enact the ADEA as a proportional response to any widespread violation of the elderly’s constitutional rights.” Id., at 1447. Chief Judge Hatchett dissented from both grounds. Id., at 1434. We granted certiorari, 525 U. S. 1121 (1999), to resolve a conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals on the question whether the ADEA validly abrogates the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. Compare Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 162 F. 3d 770 (CA2 1998) (holding…
-
Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't Pac, 528 U.S. 377 (U.S. 2000)…number of States that limit political contributions, see generally Federal Election Commission, E. Feigenbaum & J. Palmer, Campaign Finance Law 98 (1998), we granted certiorari to review the congruence of the Eighth Circuit’s decision with Buckley. 525 U. S. 1121 (1999). We reverse. II The matters raised in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), included claims that federal campaign finance legislation infringed speech and association protections of the First Amendment and the equal protection…
-
Los Angeles Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publ'g Corp., 528 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1999)…rnmental interest in preserving arrestees’ privacy. Ibid. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent and upheld the injunction against enforcement of § 6254(f)(3). We granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 1121 (1999). We hold that respondent was not, under our eases, entitled to prevail on a “facial attack” on § 6254(f)(3). Respondent’s primary argument in the District Court and the Court of Appeals was that § 6254(f)(3) was invalid on its [*38] face, a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence