Search for: "Attorney General v. Superior Court" Results 521 - 540 of 3,246
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2020, 11:53 pm by Evan Schwartz
  For example, the California Supreme Court ruled in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 5:52 am by David J. Halberg, Esq.
The latter can be tough to prove, though the Florida Supreme Court did find in the 1991 case of Ellis v. [read post]
22 Nov 2020, 4:01 am by Administrator
Criminal Law/Charter: s.15; Sex Offender RegistriesOntario (Attorney General) v. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 11:23 am by rainey Reitman
Dunkins (EFF) New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional (EFF) EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment (Ongoing case of People v Dawes in SF Superior Court re geofence warrants)  People v. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 6:00 am by Jane Turner
Over his whistleblowing career, Sanjour was involved in many high-profile environmental cases, always making sure his memos concerning EPA negligence, waste, fraud, and abuse would go to his superiors, the inspector general, Congress or the press. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 2:18 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Rule 506(b) prohibits the use of “general advertising or general solicitation. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 7:52 pm by Jayesh Rathod
David Zimmer, attorney for Agusto Niz-Chavez, calls in to argue (Art Lien) On Monday morning, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Niz-Chavez v. [read post]
As we previously wrote here, in August 2020 in an action filed by the State Attorney General, a California Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring the ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees in compliance with AB 5. [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 7:04 am by Minick Law
So today we’re going to talk about five tips for district court practice. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 9:01 am by Mills & Mills LLP
The Attorney General presents no evidence that counters the Applicant’s description of its needs. [read post]
As we previously wrote here, in August 2020 in an action filed by the State Attorney General, a California Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring the ride share companies to treat their drivers as employees in compliance with AB 5. [read post]