Cases

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT A. W. CLARK, No. 21-56337 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CREIGHTON MELAND, No. 20-15762 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:19-cv-02288- JAM-AC SHIRLEY N. WEBER,* Secretary of State of California, in her official capacity as Secretary

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGAN O’HANDLEY, No. 22-15071 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:21-cv- 07063-CRB SHIRLEY WEBER; TWITTER INC., a Delaware corporation; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECRETARIES OPINION OF STATE, a professional non

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT No. 23-55726 CALIFORNIA, INC.; JAMES P. BRADLEY; MARK REED; BUZZ D.C. No. PATTERSON; MIKE CARGILE; 2:21-cv-00032- RONDA KENNEDY, AB-MAA Plaintiffs-Appellants, OPINION v. SHIRLEY WEBER, California Secretary of State; ROB BONTA, California Attorney General; SHANNON BUSHE

Filed 5/13/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN ELAINE ALVES et al., B338413 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCP00999) v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, etc., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the

Filed 4/14/23 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA JIM BOYDSTON et al., D080921 Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1921480) ALEX PADILLA, as Secretary of State, ORDER MODIFYING

Filed 4/9/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- SHIRLEY N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, etc., C100304 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 23WM000137) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO

Filed 3/23/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE SENIOR AND DISABIILITY ACTION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A159540 v. (City and County of San SHIRLEY WEBER, as Secretary of Francisco State, etc., Super. Ct.

Filed 8/4/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ---- HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION C085176, C085381 et al., Petitioners, v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, etc., Respondent; JOSH NEWMAN, as State Senator, etc.,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Petitioners, v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, etc., Respondent; THOMAS W. HILTACHK, Real Party in Interest. S281977 June 20, 2024 Justice Liu authored the opinion of Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices

¶ 83. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). Facts shape the contours of our constitutional guarantees. By lowering the standard to meet the facts in this case, the lead opinion would erode the constitutional rights of us all.1 It sets a trajectory where, bit by bit, almost unnoticed, we may awaken one day to discover *251

2016 WI 96 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2014AP304-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Richard L. Weber, Defendant-Appellant. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED: N

2016 WI 96 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2014AP304-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Richard L. Weber, Defendant-Appellant. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED: N

Filed 7/28/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) RYAN STEPHEN EHRENREICH, C102706 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 24WM000081) v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, as Secretary of State, etc., Defenda

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether the use of a court clerk’s seal violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when the seal contains an outline of the Ten Commandments, a sword, and the name of the court and is used solely to authenticate documents. We conclude that it does not. I. BACKGROUND Since 1852, a Georgia statute has required clerks of

*1037 DAVIS, Justice. [11] Appellant Shirley Weidt was found guilty of indirect criminal contempt for failure to comply with an injunction and a nunc pro tune amendment that allowed Sheridan County to enter her property and remove vehicles and trailers which violated county zoning ordinances We find the evide

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SARIS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This is a qui tam action brought by Relator Edward West pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, and state law. Relator claims that Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical and its parent corporation, Johnson & Johnson, pursued a marketing strategy that gave kickbacks and unlawful remuner

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Julius Hayden was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as a previously convicted felon. Hayden moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an illegal search. After an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge recommended that the motion to suppress be granted. The government moved for reconsideration and for a supplemental hearing to present add

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (dissenting). I agree with the unanimous decision of the court of appeals in this case that the tape must be suppressed. The tape was taken in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights under the fourth amendment. Accordingly, I dissent. As the court of appeals forthrightly stated, this suppression case is very difficult because the illegally seized tape contains the defendant's

164 Wis.2d 788 (1991) 476 N.W.2d 867 STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. John R. WEBER, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Petitioner. No. 90-0181-CR. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Filed November 15, 1991. HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE (on motion for reconsideration). Defendant moves this court for reconsideration of its decision i