Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 5221 - 5240
of 33,828
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2015, 11:00 pm
May 8, 2015), California Magistrate Judge William V. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
(Martinez v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 7:14 am
At issue in the case is whether a California law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors violates the First Amendment. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 9:48 am
In Brennan v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 9:00 am
Weiss & Assocs v. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 5:07 am
District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 2:04 pm
Spring In Henry v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 10:31 am
Grindr Online Dating Services Must Give California Users a “Cooling Off” Period–Howell v. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 2:35 pm
Courts that apply California law use three factors to award punitive damages. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 9:01 pm
In the space below, I discuss DIRECTV v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 6:06 am
This case presents the Court’s second look at the hostility of California law to waivers of classwide arbitration. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 4:18 pm
Badgley In Ardon v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 10:06 am
In the case, Galindo v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 4:42 am
I found Brizuela v. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 9:06 am
So like many, I have been waiting for the Supreme Court's decision in Brinker v. [read post]
23 Nov 2012, 10:11 am
The case is Californians Helping to Alleviate Medical Problems, Inc., v. [read post]
8 Jun 2024, 6:39 am
Brown Engstrand * More on Law Firms and Competitive Keyword Ads–Nicolet Law v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 5:49 am
California Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Riley v. [read post]
16 May 2018, 6:44 am
In light of a new California decision interpreting California’s wage and hour law, brand companies should take a careful look at their influencer compliance programs not only for FTC compliance, but also potential employment law consequences. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 10:00 pm
The stipulation includes, among other things, a $500,000 judgment entered against hiQ, establishment of hiQ’s liability under California common law torts of trespass to chattels and misappropriation, and various forms of injunctive relief effectively prohibiting hiQ’s future ability to data scrape LinkedIn. [read post]
