The plaintiffs claimed that by contributing to global warming the defendants are violating the federal common law of interstate nuisance.

By contributing to global warming, the defendants were violating the federal common law of interstate nuisance.

The first possibility was that the defendant violated section 647.6, which applies when someone "annoys or molests any child under 18."

If the defendant violates probation, he or she must serve the full sentence immediately.

A similar outcome occurred in a case in which the defendant had violated election laws.

The case contended that the defendants violated conscionable standards regarding the treatment of the deceased.

We alleged that the defendants gave no such notice to the tenants and violated their civil rights.

"The defendants did not violate the drug possession laws," she said.

Because the defendant had violated both sections, he could be prosecuted separately under the two sections.

Cynthia and Phillip were the children of plaintiffs, who alleged that the defendant violated their liberties.