Search for: "HEAD v. CALIFORNIA"
Results 641 - 660
of 2,888
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2011, 12:41 pm
Thus, this is an issue that may well be headed to the California Supreme Court. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 2:35 pm
It’s an opinion from a federal court in California on removal and fraudulent joinder. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 1:35 pm
By Thomas Kaufman (follow me on Twitter) As anticipated, today the California Supreme Court in Brinker v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 2:45 pm
Leung v. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 6:00 am
” The case is Spanx, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 5:50 am
In its appeal (Campaign for California Families v. [read post]
18 May 2016, 6:08 am
District Court for the Southern District of California: U.S. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 1:50 pm
Because California's rules says it does. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 12:15 am
Marie v. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 11:27 am
You’re excused if it makes your head hurt. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:56 pm
The Supreme Court decided this week the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:56 pm
The Supreme Court decided this week the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:56 pm
The Supreme Court decided this week the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 3:56 pm
The Supreme Court decided this week the case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 4:33 am
The public policy towards finding an employment relationship despite contractual definitions to the contrary is to ensure that people injured performing services at the direction of another do not become the burden of the state.As noted by the Lexington court, the seminal case in California (and highly influential in other jurisdictions) is the California Supreme Court opinion in Borello & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 5:01 am
One answer can be found in a recent case, Walker v. [read post]
7 Jul 2018, 5:16 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 11:05 am
New California Case Last month in Reid v. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 8:46 pm
In fact, if I had written the ordinance, I'm not sure there would have even been as many as six exemptions... but I digress.At any rate, you can read the opinion here at Concerned Dog Owners of California, et al. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2009, 8:33 am
The opinion is Rutti v. [read post]