Search for: "The State Bar Court of the State Bar of California"
Results 501 - 520
of 11,179
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2018, 6:33 am
The California State Bar Hearing Department has entered a default on bar charges alleging, in the main, failure to comply with court-ordered sanctions in a number of matters. [read post]
15 Mar 2008, 6:54 am
Colorado outlawed juvenile life without parole in 2006, and legislation is pending in Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and California, while a few other states are experiencing grass-roots efforts. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 12:40 pm
On March 30, 2017, the State Bar submitted the proposed rules to the California Supreme Court. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 11:54 am
Excerpt from the court's letter: The second Commission should be directed to complete its work and submit all proposed rules for final consideration by the court no... [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 5:52 pm
Court, ND California 2021. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 4:30 am
A District Court in California remanded the action to state court holding that if two claims are subsumed to each other, they cannot be considered as independent claims while calculating the amount in controversy. [read post]
23 May 2022, 12:17 pm
Under a California Supreme Court decision in Robins v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 3:32 am
In a case that it described as involving the "problems that can arise when office management practices are inqadequate to ensure timely payment of State Bar membership fees," the California State Bar Court has recommended a one-year suspension, with all... [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 8:55 am
Fahy appealed a State Bar Court hearing... [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 6:24 am
The dominant features in the shareholder litigation environment in California today are fragmentation and uncertainty: Plaintiffs’ bar fragmentation means ‘too small to sue’ no longer applies Uncertainty as to whether IPO lawsuits can be brought in state court or only Federal Uncertainty in the evolution of merger and fiduciary duty suits Uncertainty as to the strength of the Safe Harbor for forward looking statements Uncertainty as to the… [read post]
15 May 2018, 3:48 pm
(2) Does California Labor Code § 226 apply to wage statements provided by an out-of-state employer to an employee who resides in California, receives pay in California, and pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California or any other state? [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 9:36 am
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court narrowed employment protections from state and federal anti-discrimination laws for religious schoolteachers. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 2:00 am
See "Man Burned at Burning Man Assumed Risk of Being Burned by Burning Man, Says Court," Lowering the Bar (July 2, 2009). [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 7:30 am
“A California court rule requiring lawyers to be fingerprinted has turned up more than 6,000 criminal history reports, including more than 2,200 convictions previously unknown to the state bar. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 12:54 am
The state court, in effect, rubber stamped her request. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:41 am
A California attorney has been disbarred for a federal felony conviction described in the report of the State Bar Court Hearing Department In February 2014 respondent visited Mexico. [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 5:24 am
An attorney who was convicted of offenses involving import and sale of counterfeit goods from China has agreed to an actual two-year suspension accepted in the recommendation of the California State Bar Court. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:01 am
Although that large number of rules has been approved through the highest level of the State Bar (i.e., the Board of Governors), at this time only six rules have been submitted to the Supreme Court of California for immediate consideration. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 7:00 am
The California State Bar Disciplinary Panel recently upheld a judge’s recommendation to suspend former Santa Clara County prosecutor Benjamin Field from the State Bar for four years. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 7:52 am
Second, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred “by failing to acknowledge, as it had in its tentative ruling, that Hyundai and the Gentry plaintiffs submitted evidence that the laws in various states were materially different than those in California, and that these variations prevented the court from applying only California law. [read post]
