Search for: "CALIFORNIANS v. CALIFORNIA" Results 281 - 300 of 590
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2021, 5:37 pm by INFORRM
Issue: the standard of proof in s.9 applications In Wright v Ver [2020] 1 WLR 3913, Dingemans LJ held (obiter) that the standard of proof in s.9 applications is the ‘balance of probabilities’. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:13 am by Mandelman
 Back then few had any idea of what was happening or what was to come, but the lawyers that stepped forward to help defend and otherwise represent Californians in an effort to keep them in their homes to me were and are heroes of the legal profession. [read post]
22 Aug 2016, 12:08 pm by Eric Goldman
2016 has been a tough year for Section 230 jurisprudence, and the nadir (so far) was the appellate court ruling in Hassell v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 9:00 am by Chain | Cohn | Stiles
These “mixed-motive” terminations were recently addressed by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 11:51 am
"   Former Business & Professions Code   § 17204; see also Californians for Disability Rights v. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:26 am
Last week the court ruled on the issue in The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v General Motors LLC. [read post]
1 Jan 2018, 12:30 am
With both parties pushing for a court determined rate, it seems that the Californian court had few jurisdictional concerns. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 3:32 am by SHG
Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry v. [read post]