Search for: "Taking Offense v. California"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,467
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2013, 4:49 am
After he was convicted of burglary in violation of California Penal Code § 459 and sentenced to four years in prison, Hoang V. [read post]
31 May 2023, 9:55 am
Additional Resources: Fried v. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 9:42 am
California’s attorney general and local-government lawyers can sue facilities that don’t comply with the law; the penalty is a $500 fine for the first offense and $1000 for any later violations. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 9:10 pm
In Cornell v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:14 am
That didn't take long.The Ninth Circuit holds oral argument in this case yesterday morning. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 2:11 pm
Additional Resources: Haynes v. [read post]
7 Jan 2022, 2:41 pm
Employers, employees and labor law attorneys should be closely watching the case of Naranjo v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 12:05 pm
An offense that's charged in California in a very high number of cases, and that carries a heavy penalty. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 12:00 am
The name comes from the 1996 case People v. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 2:47 pm
Take rape, for example. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 8:00 am
Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 11:10 am
California’s attorney general and local government lawyers can sue facilities that don’t comply with the law; the penalty is a $500 fine for the first offense and $1000 for any later violations. [read post]
29 Sep 2012, 7:10 am
Ellerth and Faragher v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 9:26 pm
See, Arizona v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 5:12 am
(Most other states take the same view.) [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 9:22 am
The post Justices take up Fourth Amendment case appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 8:48 am
If adverse impact is demonstrated, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that its policy is “job related and consistent with business necessity,” and tailored to the specific circumstances, taking into account factors such as those set forth in Green v. [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 9:30 am
Because the California Supreme Court holds that it's a permissible condition of probation for a DUI offense (!) [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 9:14 am
From Doe v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 10:16 am
The California Supreme Court has issued its decision in Hernandez v. [read post]
