Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 5421 - 5440
of 33,829
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2011, 11:46 am
In Sybase, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 12:12 am
On this specific point, the court first recalled that the California courts have set a high bar for repugnancy and underlined that, according to the Ohno’s decision, which dealt with Japanese tort law, repugnancy does not mean that the foreign judgment is contrary to the U.S. public policy, but rather that it is so offensive to the public policy to be prejudicial to recognized standards of morality and to the general interests of the citizens. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 10:20 am
California law requires that the property interest be “well-defined” and “like staking a claim to a plot of land at the title office. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 3:59 pm
After the California Second District Court of Appeal’s Oct. 8, 2019, decision in Gonzales v. [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 3:59 pm
After the California Second District Court of Appeal’s Oct. 8, 2019, decision in Gonzales v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 10:24 pm
It's always informative when California does something differently than the federal system. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 8:17 am
On December 19th, we wrote an article about a poorly decided California Supreme Court decision, Van Horn v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 10:45 am
With the help of McKennon Law Group PC, an insurance and ERISA litigation law firm in Newport Beach, California, Irina Morris was able to get the justice she rightfully deserved for her case. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 10:45 am
In the case of Irina Morris v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
13 Nov 2021, 1:39 pm
Ctr. for Law & Justice v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 10:00 pm
Uber Technologies Inc. , the California Supreme Court held that it is not bound by the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law in Viking River Cruises v. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 8:43 pm
District Court Judge James V. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 12:41 pm
This year I am teaching Entertainment Law at the University of California at Davis. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 12:41 pm
This year I am teaching Entertainment Law at the University of California at Davis. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 11:48 am
Clancy v. [read post]
