Search for: "California v. Super. Ct."
Results 241 - 260
of 464
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2008, 6:08 pm
Super. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:20 pm
Super. [read post]
12 May 2009, 1:40 am
Ct.). [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:53 am
Super. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
Super. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 5:48 pm
Substantially so.The statute at issue -- the California Voting Rights Act -- says that a plaintiff has to establish five elements to obtain relief under the statute: 1. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 2:00 am
Super. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 2:59 pm
Super. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Super. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 9:31 am
Ct. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 5:06 am
[This is a five-part series exploring the thirty-year-plus journey through California's property tax history, which led up to January's abolition of California's redevelopment agencies, using as our source text the preamble from the RDA abolition decision in California Redevelopment Association et al. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 5:38 pm
Ct. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 8:00 am
Ct. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 12:15 am
Ct. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 3:00 pm
And we're super harsh on that. [read post]
5 Sep 2024, 10:25 am
Ct. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 8:50 am
Super. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 10:50 am
Patent No. 5,859,601 is super interesting because it is so similar to the patent rejected by the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 10:07 am
Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty), alleges claims under California Civil Code § 3344 (requiring parental consent for the use of a minor’s persona in advertising), the California Constitution, Art. 1, section 1 (right of privacy), and California Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17204 (unfair competition law). [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 6:02 am
Ct. [read post]
