Search for: "California State Bar Court"
Results 4361 - 4380
of 11,181
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2012, 1:32 pm
RULLCA has been adopted in some form by five states and the District of Columbia and also is expected to be enacted this year in California and New Jersey. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 11:38 am
District Court Judge Algenon Marbley ruled that the law, which had been scheduled to take effect Jan. 15, was too broad, as the tech industry trade group NetChoice had alleged in the lawsuit it filed against the law on Jan. 5. [read post]
15 Oct 2020, 12:47 pm
Sadly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has denied Defendant Jeffery Olsen his Sixth Amendment right to a public and speedy trial on the criminal charges that were filed against him in this case. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 9:49 am
I look to see if the candidate filed a voluntary self-disclosure form with the state. [read post]
23 Aug 2017, 9:00 am
Burke (2017) 3 Cal.5th 136, the California Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the Courts of Appeal and held that section 1009 bars all use of non-coastal private real property, not simply recreational use of such property, from ever ripening into an implied dedication to the public after March 4, 1972. [read post]
23 Aug 2017, 9:00 am
Burke (2017) 3 Cal.5th 136, the California Supreme Court resolved a dispute between the Courts of Appeal and held that section 1009 bars all use of non-coastal private real property, not simply recreational use of such property, from ever ripening into an implied dedication to the public after March 4, 1972. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 4:08 pm
Under California’s “one shot” rule, if an order is appealable it must be timely appealed or the right to challenge any part of it is “forfeited” and “forever lost. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 3:20 pm
In fact, the circuit court reversed the decision of the district court, which found the plaintiff’s claims barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 4:00 am
” The ABA Rule has since been adopted by 40 states (many between 2013 and 2018), with the California State bar going further, issuing a formal opinion requiring litigators to either be competent in e-discovery or associate with others who are[7]. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 11:15 am
Seacrets to file an action for trademark infringement in a Maryland federal district court. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 7:13 pm
” A couple of other states (Kansas, California) have taken a similar public policy approach, but more have not, as cases from Kentucky, Michigan, New York, and Texas have found a six-month limitations period reasonable, and that’s all that was required. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:49 pm
The Court did not take center stage by deciding the constitutional challenges we are watching most closely: the cases involving the health care reform statute, Arizona’s S.B. 1070 immigration law, or the upcoming dispute on California’s Proposition 8 on gay marriage. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 8:56 am
In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Assn. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
The California district court initially ruled that the new class action was barred by collateral estoppel. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 9:06 pm
Proposition 209 has survived two rounds of constitutional challenges each in the California Supreme Court and in the U.S. [read post]
27 Dec 2008, 11:08 am
State v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 9:10 am
“The statute does not limit its application to California, nor does it require that websites displaying officials’ home address or telephone numbers bar California only internet users’ access. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 10:52 am
However, the Supreme Court of California has accepted the State Bar’s petition to review the decision. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 4:05 am
Anthony California, Inc., et al. (11/13/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case no. 03-CV-874); no reasoning provided within the opinion HIF Bio, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 8:00 am
This required directly challenging, or, at times, ignoring the commands of Congress and the Supreme Court. [read post]
