Search for: "United States v. California" Results 5521 - 5540 of 13,836
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2016, 7:21 am by Joy Waltemath
Should the Department look to the State of California’s law (requiring that 50 percent of an employee’s time be spent exclusively on work that is the employee’s primary duty) as a model? [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 3:14 am
He was the author of the INTA amicus curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Qualitex Co. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
Artist now suing the state. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:02 am by Lebowitz & Mzhen
The defendant objected to the expert’s opinion, and the trial court ruled that his testimony was not applicable to the standard of care that the plaintiff was entitled to receive in the United States. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:02 am by Lebowitz & Mzhen
The defendant objected to the expert’s opinion, and the trial court ruled that his testimony was not applicable to the standard of care that the plaintiff was entitled to receive in the United States. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 8:19 pm by Jeffrey Brown and Jodie Herrmann Lawson
In a closely watched case pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the CFPB obtained a significant victory against CashCall Inc. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
The first female Stanford law professor was also first director of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, one of the first women to be an Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and the biographer of California’s first woman lawyer, Clara Foltz. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 8:44 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
There is no denying the space program in the United States is not like it once was. [read post]
11 Sep 2016, 8:44 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
There is no denying the space program in the United States is not like it once was. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 10:31 am by Michael Grossman
After evaluating her claim, the district court ruled in favor of Match.com, citing Title 47, Section 230 of the United States Code, known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA). [read post]