Search for: "Stand Up for California! v. California"
Results 321 - 340
of 3,415
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2010, 1:04 pm
Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 5:38 pm
The California Court of Appeals ultimately held Carter lacked standing to even make such a request. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 11:25 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 12:57 pm
The court came to this conclusion by looking to a 2011 case, Howell v. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 7:40 am
In Powell v. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 7:22 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 6:11 pm
This means the Court of Appeal's decision stands, and it means the District Court's troublesome decision in Wang v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 9:12 am
Cal Rejects Preemption and Standing Defenses Against Claims Under CA Spam Statute -- Asis Internet Servs. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 4:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 5:55 am
Under a recent California appellate decision, Gomes v. [read post]
21 May 2019, 12:34 pm
Jones sets up the question, but neither Jones nor the relevant history provides much in the way of answers.17 The Court subsequently applied Jones in Florida v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 5:28 am
Guevarra v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 11:29 am
Especially since my strong, strong sense is that, regardless of what the law is, the factfinder is going to hold it against the patient if they do not get up on the stand and demonstrate some passive lucidity.In short, if they say you're still crazy, you've got a right, but you'd be crazy to invoke it. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 10:37 pm
(CARB seems to stand for California Air Resources Board.) [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 4:24 pm
Part #2: Progress v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 11:51 am
Amaral v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 4:29 am
Commentary on Glossip v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 12:03 pm
Weideman Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hernandez v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:40 am
In Arizona v. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 1:46 pm
B253475 (appealing court decision that Song-Beverly Act did not apply to online transactions picked up at store); Ambers v. [read post]