Search for: "Superior Court of California"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 10,168
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2018, 12:02 pm
The MetNews reports Retired Supreme Court Justice Arabian Dies:Armand Arabian, who served on the California Supreme Court from 1990-96, and before that on the Los Angeles Municipal Court, the Los Angeles Superior Court, and the Court of Appeal, has died.He was 83. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 10:56 am
In a proposed statement of decision after trial regarding California’s Proposition 65, which requires warning labels on consumer products that contain certain chemicals that may cause cancer or reproductive harm, a judge in Los Angeles Superior Court stated that coffee requires such a warning. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 8:50 am
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle wrote, "Defendants did not offer substantial evidence to quantify any minimum amount of acrylamide in coffee that might be necessary to reduce microbiological contamination or render coffee palatable... [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 2:47 pm
"Solano County, Superior Court No. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 11:17 am
CDCR by Superior Court Judge Roy O. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 9:33 am
It filed a petition in Superior Court in Fresno County seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to enjoin OEHHA from listing glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 7:19 am
Superior Court In Fox v. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 7:19 am
Superior Court In Fox v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 1:42 pm
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:45 am
The appellate court recalled in fact the 1979 decision of the California Supreme Court in Guglielmi, a case concerning a TV programme that was a ‘fictionalized version’ of Rudolph Valentino’s life (Valentino had died years earlier). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:41 am
Although the court found the plaintiffs’ claims satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a), they failed to satisfy the predominance, superiority, and ascertainability requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:41 am
Although the court found the plaintiffs’ claims satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a), they failed to satisfy the predominance, superiority, and ascertainability requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) and lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 9:35 am
Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 989 (2009)). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 8:47 am
Superior Court, a 1983 California appellate case “which arose from an unusual set of facts,” in which a tabloid published an article about the supposed involvement of famous actor Clint Eastwood in a “love triangle. [read post]
Balancing The Duty To Represent With The Duty To Consider: And A Side Story of Five Very Large Cats.
27 Mar 2018, 1:00 am
Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768 (1975), in which the California Supreme Court noted “A councilman has not a right but an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with his constituents. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 7:43 pm
” Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the lawsuit goes on to accuse the ride-sharing company of directly violating “the law by not providing an equal and accessible transportation option to all. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 7:43 pm
” Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the lawsuit goes on to accuse the ride-sharing company of directly violating “the law by not providing an equal and accessible transportation option to all. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 5:38 pm
This test, from a California Supreme Court case called Comedy III Productions v. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 4:24 pm
On the other hand, the plaintiffs’ bar tends to feel very comfortable in California superior courts, especially in certain counties viewed as hospitable to such lawsuits. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 4:20 pm
Ellison (Retired) of the Superior Court of Fresno County, having been assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution will be sitting pro tempore through May 31, 2018 [read post]
