Search for: "In the Interest of SB"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,916
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2022, 12:15 am
The bill will next be heard by the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, which might be expected to have a greater interest in constitutional questions. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
Under strict scrutiny, the state needed to show that SB 826: (1) satisfied a compelling government interest; (2) was necessary to satisfy that interest; and (3) was narrowly tailored to meet that government interest. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
Under strict scrutiny, the state needed to show that SB 826: (1) satisfied a compelling government interest; (2) was necessary to satisfy that interest; and (3) was narrowly tailored to meet that government interest. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 8:52 am
For now, California may not enforce either SB 826 or AB 979. [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:09 am
The opinion holds that the key parts of Florida’s social media censorship law (SB 7072) likely violate the First Amendment and should remain enjoined. [read post]
23 May 2022, 11:12 am
The Court similarly rejected the SOS’s position that SB 826 was necessary to protect these broad economic and societal interests. [read post]
19 May 2022, 7:05 am
Xiao R, Ross JS, Gross CP, Dusetzina SB, McWilliams JM, Sethi RKV, Rathi VK. [read post]
18 May 2022, 11:04 am
” Under the test, the state must show that (1) it has a compelling interest, (2) the law is necessary, and (3) the law is narrowly tailored to serve the interest. [read post]
17 May 2022, 7:37 pm
” The burden of proof then shifted to California to show that SB 826 satisfied strict scrutiny by proving “(1) a compelling state interest, (2) that S.B. 826 is necessary and (3) that S.B. 826 is narrowly tailored. [read post]
17 May 2022, 4:15 am
The decision states: As to the claimed interest that S.B. 826 was passed to remedy discrimination, defendant has not met its burden to show that this is necessary nor narrowly tailored. [read post]
17 May 2022, 12:15 am
Here are some highlights of the verdict: The plaintiffs met their burden to prove that men and women are similarly situated for purposes of SB 826, thereby shifting the burden to the defendant to show:A compelling state interest; SB 826 is necessary; and SB 826 is narrowly tailored. [read post]
11 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Swaps emerged in the 1980s to provide producers and merchants with a way to lock in the price of commodities, interest rates, and currency rates. [read post]
2 May 2022, 12:25 pm
By eliminating the abandonment requirement, SB 8839 would arguably create an onerous per se violation whenever a developer sold more than 10% of a token class. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 6:53 am
The court granted the requested relief, finding that the state law was too broad and did not meet compelling interests, as required under the California Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 12:03 pm
Keep an Eye Out: SB 826 AB 979 is not the only legislation affecting the make-up of the boards of California corporation. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 11:40 am
The ISPs opposed SB 156 and have taken active interest in hindering all steps of its implementation. [read post]
13 Apr 2022, 12:15 am
This may seem to be a petty quibbling, but it does raise an interesting question - are proxies solicited by the Board, by the company or by management? [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 12:27 pm
Judicial Watch also is challenging SB 826 in separate litigation. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm
Further, I have asked staff to make a proposal for the Commission’s consideration around conflicts of interest and other governance principles at security-based swap clearing agencies. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 2:04 pm
AB 979 was largely modeled on SB 826. [read post]
