Search for: "Attorney General v. Superior Court" Results 2121 - 2140 of 3,267
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2012, 1:19 pm by Kara M. Maciel
Importantly, the Iskanian Court also held that representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) – sometimes referred to as the “Bounty Hunter Law” or the “Sue Your Boss Law” --can be waived in arbitration agreements. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 12:41 pm by <a href=''>Kara M. Maciel</a>
Importantly, the Iskanian Court also held that representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) – sometimes referred to as the “Bounty Hunter Law” or the “Sue Your Boss Law” –can be waived in arbitration agreements. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm by Kara M. Maciel
Importantly, the Iskanian Court also held that representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) – sometimes referred to as the “Bounty Hunter Law” or the “Sue Your Boss Law” –can be waived in arbitration agreements. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 9:58 am by Arthur F. Coon
Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8), while they have also reigned in the record’s scope by holding the statute does not abrogate or impliedly repeal the law of privilege. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 3:00 am by Ken
Take it away, Martinez v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
  We recognize that the PAGA serves to benefit the public and that private attorney general laws may be severely undercut by application of the FAA. [read post]
22 May 2012, 11:07 pm by John Steele
Those reports included statements that the withdrawal was the result of corruption in the Hamilton Police Department and the Office of the Attorney-General and the involvement of a former client of Lynn Gilbank who had become a police informer. [read post]
16 May 2012, 11:38 am by Douglas Melcher
On May 10, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Nader v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 2:00 am by Hull and Hull LLP
 Interestingly, the Order was stayed for 30 days, allowing the Attorney General time to consider whether he wishes to apply for an interlocutory order under s. 4 of the Civil Remedies Act. [read post]