Search for: "STATE OF CAL., ETC. v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 182
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
County of Butte v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 2:18 pm
July 29, 2019: Capital One issues a public announcement concerning the data breach, which affected approximately 100 million individuals in the United States and approximately 6 million in Canada. [read post]
12 May 2020, 2:50 pm
A United States Secret Service Special Agent with training in identifying counterfeit currency opined that the inkjet printer, linen paper, and acetone were items used in the manufacturing of counterfeit currency. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:00 am
If, as some have worried, "[e]achtime the Court overrules a case, the Court . . . cause[s] thepublic to become increasingly uncertain about which casesthe Court will overrule," Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 3:16 pm
Illustrative of this, the Plaintiffs in the action dismissed all non-California law claims following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2020, 5:01 am
Cal.): The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") codifies the protections of migratory birds as outlined in various conventions between the United States and four foreign countries: Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm
City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 9:26 am
These distinctions just scratch the surface and add to the complexity of the emerging patchwork of data privacy and security law in the United States. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 9:26 am
These distinctions just scratch the surface and add to the complexity of the emerging patchwork of data privacy and security law in the United States. [read post]
29 Aug 2019, 7:56 am
Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com, et al. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 1:29 pm
Ohio 1982); Cal. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 4:31 pm
The Discussion Paper does not refer to alternative remedies to damages, and its discussion of takedown procedures does not appear to acknowledge the confused state of the law in relation to internet service providers, social media behemoths, etc. [read post]
2 Sep 2018, 11:49 am
In United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 6:10 am
This was one of the United States’ stated objectives for NAFTA. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 1:15 pm
” Cal. [read post]
11 May 2018, 9:32 pm
Cal. watchlist. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 7:45 pm
It is, therefore, of great consequence and concern that the California court summarily decided that the order made against Google could not be enforced in the United States. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 10:45 am
In Dahlia v. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 7:17 am
Cal. 2004). [read post]
