Search for: "Jackson et al v. State of California et al" Results 21 - 40 of 95
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2021, 2:23 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  Three California state courts enforced federal forum provisions for Delaware companies in Wong v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 2:15 pm by Michael H. Neifach and Amy L. Peck
The complaint filed in California, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor, et al., challenges both the Strengthening Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Aliens in the United States Rule and the Strengthening of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Rule. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 11:36 am by Aimee Guthat
” In the Northern District of California, Immigrant Legal Resource Center et al. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2020, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Faden, PH.D., et al., Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. v. [read post]
5 May 2019, 4:41 pm by INFORRM
United States The New York Law Journal reports that a libel claim filed [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
Following Recent Cases in Media Law at the European Court of Human Rights, van der Hof et al. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:22 am by Matthew Scott Johnson
Shaw et. al., Intellectual Disability, the Death Penalty, and Jurors, 58 JURIMETRICS J. 437 (2018). 11. [read post]
25 Aug 2018, 1:06 pm by Kelsey Farish
Disney has responded to the copyright lawsuit lodged earlier this year in California by the Estate of Michael Jackson (MJJ Productions (et al) v Walt Disney Company and ABC INC). [read post]
29 Jul 2018, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
On 25 and 26 July 2018, the Court of Appeal (Sharp, Asplin LJJ and Sir Rupert Jackson) heard the appeal in the case of Kennedy v National Trust for Scotland. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:45 am
[…]” (emphasis added)The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held (BC667011) that, because Feud tried to portray de Havilland as realistically as possible, it was not ‘transformative’ and therefore not eligible for protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.The decision was appealed to Court of Appeal of the State of California - Second Appellate District, which yesterday decidedto reverse the lower court’s order [the case is… [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 10:32 am by Francisco Macías
  Jackson:  University Press of Mississippi, 2005. [read post]