Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 7501 - 7520
of 33,829
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2019, 6:23 am
There have been occasional exceptions to courts' general unwillingness to intervene in this area, such as in the 1983 California case of Barbara A. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2019, 5:01 am
From Crouch v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 4:22 pm
The Program was well presented and covered the impact of the Key v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 2:48 pm
MARTIN SAN FRANCISCO, September 24 – Today, Renne Public Law Group (RPLG), a San Francisco-based law firm that represents local governments, filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief asking the United States Supreme Court to review City of Boise v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 1:52 pm
The most analogous limitation period was the four-year statute of limitations under California law. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 12:36 pm
Justice Hoffstadt begins today's opinion by saying the following:"Earlier this year, one of our sister courts in People v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 12:08 pm
Whether those and other practical consequences of the hurried passage of the new law were considered by the California legislature is unclear. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 11:31 am
Mark Lemley (Stanford Law) and I filed an amicus brief in 1-800 Contacts v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 10:32 am
AB5, effective Jan. 1, 2020, seeks to codify and clarify a California Supreme Court case (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 7:00 am
California (1931) Nebbia v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 12:12 am
On this specific point, the court first recalled that the California courts have set a high bar for repugnancy and underlined that, according to the Ohno’s decision, which dealt with Japanese tort law, repugnancy does not mean that the foreign judgment is contrary to the U.S. public policy, but rather that it is so offensive to the public policy to be prejudicial to recognized standards of morality and to the general interests of the citizens. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:38 am
As we have previously reported, in April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a sweeping ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 10:40 am
Maeda v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 9:46 am
Borello & Songs, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 9:46 am
Borello & Songs, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 9:38 am
C. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2019, 7:55 am
A: An "inventory" search.United States v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 11:24 pm
The California Supreme Court in Edwards v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 12:00 pm
California’s AB 5, signed by Governor Newsom on September 18, 2019, codifies the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 11:17 am
Marshall v. [read post]
