Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 7121 - 7140
of 33,829
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
These groups claim the allowance payments to the states are, in reality, taxes that do not provide a direct benefit or service to the fee payer, in violation of California law. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 4:32 pm
Prior to the Santa Ana POA decision, based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Pasadena Police Officers Association v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 7:30 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Joblove v. [read post]
7 Mar 2018, 7:27 am
The appellate court’s conclusion otherwise was reversed (Alvarado v. [read post]
16 Sep 2007, 9:42 pm
In Estrada v. [read post]
19 May 2016, 12:54 pm
That's true in California state court. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 12:46 pm
As an historical matter, I get it, and I personally like to see how law changes over time. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 2:44 pm
Country X.Particularly when, as here, one of the defendants resides in Country X and isn't subject to jurisdiction in California. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 1:53 pm
Plus, research attorneys for the Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court are state employees. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 8:48 am
In Wilson v. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 8:33 pm
From the outset of California v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
Windsor and Burwell v. [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 4:00 am
In Nicodemus v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 9:39 am
According to a five-member majority of the California Supreme Court in Augustus v. [read post]
26 Nov 2015, 9:57 am
It’s been nearly 10 years since plaintiff in Camicia v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 8:56 am
What about, say, California?! [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 8:18 am
April 17, 2013), calling for en banc review to establish the point that "federal courts should no longer apply the California anti-SLAPP statute in diversity cases because" anti-SLAPP law "is procedural, not substantive." [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 9:55 am
Decision Not Binding Rylaarsdam: Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed Based on His Earlier Statement That the Plaintiff Is Not a California Resident, concerning this law of the case doctrine case: Investors Equity v. [read post]
14 Feb 2019, 5:30 am
University of California v. [read post]
10 Oct 2020, 9:46 am
Law Offices of Curtis v. [read post]
