Search for: "Application of State of California"
Results 2141 - 2160
of 18,179
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 May 2017, 12:34 pm
The trial court denied the company’s motion for summary judgment under the state’s recreational use immunity statute, codified by California Civil Code section 846. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 8:34 am
The revisions to the California law, along with the patchwork of other applicable federal and state laws—and the attention from regulators, state attorneys and plaintiffs’ counsel—make it crucial for any business offering consumers a subscription or similar auto-renewal product or service to review its practices to ensure compliance. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 1:27 pm
California follows federal, and some state, courts in enacting new e-discovery rules. [read post]
9 May 2016, 2:44 pm
The state high court held that Flores’ claim was governed by the former. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 11:33 am
State lawmakers recently introduced some misguided changes to California’s Assembly Bill 1681, which would require that manufacturers and operating system providers be able to decrypt smartphones sold in the state. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 5:39 pm
Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in Viking stated that “[o]f course, if this Court’s understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 8:07 am
The potential addition of another state privacy law to those that are already on the books in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia is significant in its own right. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 11:21 pm
Section 2115 of the California Corporations Code provides that certain provisions of California law, including Section 309 (directors' standard of care), should apply to a corporation incorporated under the laws of another state if the average of the property, payroll and sales factors defined in the California statutes indicate that more than half of the corporation's business is conducted in California and if more than half of its voting… [read post]
11 May 2012, 12:59 pm
Although Maryland is so far the only state to have passed such measures into law, yesterday the California Assembly unanimously passed A.B. 1844, which would prohibit employers from requesting user name or password information from applicants and employees. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 4:31 pm
We further conclude that although California has a de minimis rule that is a background principle of state law, the rule is not applicable here. [read post]
28 Jan 2022, 2:18 pm
The Ninth Circuit certified the following question of state law for the California Supreme Court to answer: “Does the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code replace the McDonnell Douglas test as the evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under Section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code? [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 3:21 pm
These two criteria are: (1) a demonstration of “community interest” in the project; and (2) submission of a legal opinion from an “AmLaw 100” law firm stating that the community solar offering does constitute a “securities” offering under applicable securities laws. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 5:01 am
The California Taxpayers Association has provided its analysis of the no-cash policy along with some background.One point to note is that California’s Franchise Tax Board permits taxpayers to file an application to pay taxes in cash. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 11:37 am
Here, the employer argued that the employee must utilize the opt-in procedures applicable to actions brought directly under the FLSA, as opposed to the opt-out procedures of Rule 23. [read post]
12 May 2012, 1:45 pm
The State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1844 on Thursday, making any information that workers or job applicants deem as private on social networking sites unavailable to employers or prospective employers. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 2:32 pm
The work agreements expressly stated: “having entered into this Agreement in good faith, the Parties agree that the terms and procedures set forth herein shall be controlling if a dispute arises with regard to its application or interpretation. [read post]
12 Aug 2020, 2:08 pm
If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 9:41 am
Next the 9th Circuit analyzed the California Court of Appeals' application of the Transformative Use test in Kirby v. [read post]
9 Sep 2019, 11:54 am
It then stated that the notice-prejudice rule satisfied all three criteria. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 2:45 pm
The Ninth Circuit panel also examined state decisional law interpreting § 16600, and pointed to Edwards v. [read post]
