Search for: "State California v. Superior Court"
Results 601 - 620
of 4,009
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2017, 10:34 am
Soon after Cyan, Inc. filed its IPO, shareholders sued in a class action in California Superior Court, seeking remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 10:34 am
Soon after Cyan, Inc. filed its IPO, shareholders sued in a class action in California Superior Court, seeking remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 5:12 am
Superior Court, 2014 WL 5468967 (California Court ofAppeals 2014).To understand the motion to suppress, it is necessary to understand how the case arose. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:40 pm
Superior Court of San Bernardino (Garlow) (2009) ___ Cal. [read post]
8 Sep 2023, 5:31 pm
See Navrides v. [read post]
14 May 2021, 8:53 am
Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court adopted the so-called “ABC test” for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, which AB-5 subsequently codified. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
On Wednesday, August 17, 2011, the Labor and Employment Law Section of the State Bar of California will present a full-day seminar entitled "Wage & Hour Class Actions After AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 11:44 am
Peña v. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 6:01 am
Superior Court of California on a critical issue of first impression at the federal appellate level: whether the PSLRA automatic stay of discovery pending a motion to dismiss in Securities Act cases applies to actions filed in state court. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 3:53 pm
Superior Court (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1029. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 4:30 am
Hayrapetyan v. [read post]
9 May 2010, 8:55 am
Superior Court (Turcios) (2010 Cal. [read post]
14 May 2014, 2:57 pm
So holds today’s California Court of Appeal decision in Digital Music News LLC v. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:38 pm
Since the United States Supreme Court's ruling on AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 1:37 pm
Moreover, the California Supreme Court's substantive analysis in Tarasoff seems powerfully applicable to both scenarios. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:57 pm
There is a serious problem with that analysis: the California Supreme Court held in Adams v. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 12:16 pm
The California Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Gentry v. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 4:01 pm
This is doctrinally merely a case about jurisdiction; in particular, whether California retains jurisdiction over dependency matters when it initially exercises jurisdiction (without objection by another state) even though the other state (here, Texas) says that it might reassert jurisdiction if the parents subsequently move back to that state. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 10:48 am
(As we explained here, AB 5 codified and expanded the “ABC” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 12:39 pm
Padilla, Aug. 6, 2019, Los Angeles County Superior Court [read post]
