Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 2261 - 2280
of 34,273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Sep 2014, 3:00 am
The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Cochran v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 9:51 am
Furthermore, gender identity and gender expression are also specifically protected under California law. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 11:58 am
We hold that such a provision is contrary to California public policy and is thus unenforceable under California law. [read post]
27 Aug 2020, 10:24 am
” In a subsequent California Supreme Court case, People v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 10:58 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that prohibited California from enforcing AB 51, which was signed into law in 2019 (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 9:40 am
See Kingsbury v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 8:20 am
Moran, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; University of California, Irvine, Law School, and Devon W. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 9:45 am
In a victory for California businesses, the 2nd District Court of Appeal has ruled in an unpublished opinion that on-call rest periods are lawful. 2nd Appellate Court Ruling In Jennifer Augustus, et al. v. [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 11:43 am
In People v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 10:10 am
Salas v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 12:00 am
In Apple v. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 3:53 pm
” California Building Industry Association v. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 3:24 pm
Stephen Lee (University of California, Irvine School of Law) has posted De Facto Immigration Courts (California Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 3, 2013) on SSRN. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 4:48 am
De Facto Immigration Courts by Stephen Lee University of California, Irvine School of Law June 6, 2013 California Law Review, Vol. 101, No. 3, 2013 Abstract: In Padilla v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 1:01 pm
In Sullivan v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:23 pm
At Traverse Internet Law we noted a decision handed down last week in Federal Court in California. [read post]
18 Jun 2021, 6:50 am
Dorf has a post titled “Why Did the California v. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 3:02 pm
L.A., LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014), the California Supreme Court held that where “an employment agreement compels the waiver of representative claims under the PAGA, it is contrary to public policy and unenforceable as a matter of state law. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 6:08 am
Further, significantly in light of Dukes, the employer’s formal policies required compliance with California law. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 2:43 pm
On November 1, 2018, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s ruling in AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. [read post]
