Search for: "State v. Mateo " Results 181 - 200 of 234
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2015, 7:31 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The “public concern” test from employment cases is a poor fit for the reasons stated by the dissent. [read post]
15 May 2018, 11:25 am by Ronald Collins
One of those dots is Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1809 opinion in Bank of the United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 1:05 pm by Dani Selby
In 2016, Swarns served as lead counsel for Buck, arguing Buck v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 12:21 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  The Daily Democrat recently reported that the City of Woodland, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties have submitted a May 2, 2014 depublication request to the California Supreme Court regarding the Third District Court of Appeal’s partially-published decision in California Clean Energy Committee v. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 12:01 pm by Joy Waltemath
The plaintiffs noted that Facebook’s Terms of Service include a choice-of-venue provision requiring users “to resolve disputes in the Northern District of California or a state court in San Mateo County and submit to personal jurisdiction of such courts. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 5:45 pm by INFORRM
” Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia In the case of Nassif v Seven Network [2021] FCA 1286. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 2:47 pm by Jeffrey D. Polsky
Since I wrote on this topic last October, a federal district court ruled that AB 51 (seeking to ban mandatory workplace arbitration) was unenforceable, a state appellate court issued a decision restricting third-party discovery (Aixtron, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am by Steven Peck
COLA's auditor also stated that Miracle Star did not provide adequate records for the audit, which caused the auditor to be unable to determine if Miracle Star had provided all specific services stated in the contract. [read post]