Search for: "Downs v. State of California"
Results 201 - 220
of 6,445
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2017, 6:02 am
On July 13, 2017, in a decision with serious repercussions on the scope of PAGA discovery, the California Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeals in Williams v. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 2:26 pm
See Marrache v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:25 am
In a Tentative Ruling (full text [scroll down]) in Leary v. [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 10:42 am
On August 22, 2019, in Trina Ray et al. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
In Perry and United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 12:29 am
Press), examines the 1963 case, Abington v. [read post]
23 Feb 2005, 12:53 pm
In Johnson v. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 10:25 am
In Miller v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 7:16 am
Despite a ruling by the California Supreme Court in favor of defendant in Webb v. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 9:01 pm
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 6:00 pm
As the state’s Second District Court of Appeals recently explained, the burden is usually on a spouse who says he or she can’t work to prove it. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 6:00 pm
As the state’s Second District Court of Appeals recently explained, the burden is usually on a spouse who says he or she can’t work to prove it. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 12:57 pm
The case is Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 4:10 am
Superior Court of Riverside County, (CA App., Nov. 27, 2018), a California state appellate court issued a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its decision striking down California's End of Life Option Act. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 2:00 pm
The Los Angeles Times has this story about a pending California Supreme Court case, Martinez v. [read post]
6 Sep 2024, 9:00 am
Rattagan v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 1:47 pm
In a 2011 decision, Sullivan v. [read post]
7 Nov 2021, 9:41 am
The justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2008, 8:58 am
The Hawaii Supreme Court, for example, in State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 8:27 am
It would seem that the partners in a same sex marriage which occurred in one of the twelve states (thirteen counting California which joined those ranks today with the Court;'s dismissal of the Hollingsworth case upon the grounds that the California plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Prop 8)might not be entitled to the benefits afforded heterosexual marriages in states which do not recognize same sex marriages. [read post]
