Search for: "County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court" Results 541 - 560 of 650
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2011, 3:30 am
Penney, filed a representative enforcement action in Los Angeles County Superior Court pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 4:37 pm by INFORRM
  Darryl Wilkins filed the suit against Duff in Los Angeles County Superior Court, accusing her of damaging his reputation by implying he is a child predator in a video she posted to social media of the confrontation. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 5:11 am by David G. Badertscher
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Los Angeles County Superior Court. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 3:24 am by Sean Wajert
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2009 WL 4044429 (Cal. [read post]
(F073634; nonpublished opinion; Stanislaus County Superior Court; 2006153.) [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am by stevemehta
The Cassidys and their son Daniel subsequently cross-complained against Blix Street for royalties allegedly owing.2 The trial of the case commenced in March of 2006, presided over by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lee Edmon. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am by stevemehta
The Cassidys and their son Daniel subsequently cross-complained against Blix Street for royalties allegedly owing.2 The trial of the case commenced in March of 2006, presided over by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lee Edmon. [read post]
8 Nov 2020, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts As already mentioned, Nicol J handed down judgment in the case of Depp v NGN [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB)) on 2 November 2020. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 4:30 am by Nick Farr
 Anderson was the first of three similar class actions filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 10:32 am by Ad Law Defense
BC435759 (Los Angeles County Superior Court), argued that although acrylamide was listed as a Prop 65 chemical – and although acrylamide was present in coffee (created as part of the roasting process) – consuming coffee, itself, has not been shown to cause cancer and, therefore, a Prop 65 warning was unwarranted. [read post]
City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (1987), these provisions did not confer the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in a meaningful way. [read post]
City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (1987), these provisions did not confer the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in a meaningful way. [read post]