Search for: "The State Bar Court of the State Bar of California" Results 7241 - 7260 of 11,375
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm
The jury found for the City, the California Court of Appeals upheld the verdict, and the California Supreme Court refused to review the ruling. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 11:47 am by John J. Sullivan
  The court disposed of the last two claims under California law first. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 8:40 am by Maya Risman
District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 7:17 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The state supreme court summarized Concepcion as standing for the proposition that the FAA “generally does not permit a state to bar class action waivers by finding an arbitration agreement unconscionable on the basis of a class action waiver alone. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 5:28 am by Mandelman
Still, I got to meet a couple of fairly senior guys at the FTC a couple of years back when I  was invited to be a speaker on a panel at the American Bar Association’s Conference on Consumer Financial Services. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 1:32 am by Kevin LaCroix
The California court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:29 pm by Linda McClain
Will they find any support in the precedent of the Prop 8 proponents defending Prop 8 when the State of California declined to do so? [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 2:52 pm by Eugene Volokh
The jury convicted defendant on two counts of attempting to distribute “harmful to minors” material to his daughter; the jury convicted on both counts; and the Utah Supreme Court upheld the convictions (see State v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 5:00 am by Doug Cornelius
Will The Pilot Know When A Corporation Has “Crost the Bar”? [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 4:07 pm
Again, the California Supreme Court found otherwise, holding that Concepcion also barred any claims brought under PAGA attempting to invalidate a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 2:20 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  The California Supreme Court hasn’t decided whether a delayed discovery rule applies to UCL claims, and the courts of appeal are divided, but the instant court of appeal had already held that—at least for UCL claims based on deceptive practices where the harm wouldn’t reasonably be discovered until a future date—the period starts to run only when a reasonable person would have discovered the factual basis for the claim. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 9:57 am by Kevin B. Murphy
Murphy has also been an Approved MCLE (Minimum Continuing Legal Education) Provider by the State Bar of California, teaching franchise law, franchising vs. licensing (franchise vs. license), and intellectual property courses to California attorneys. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 9:23 am by Walter Haines, Esq.
The EEOC stated that the company likely violated:   (a) Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination, and (b) violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which bars employment discrimination based on "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. [read post]