Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 7621 - 7640
of 33,829
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2013, 12:06 pm
Last year the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
In a decision filed January 26, 2011 (Ceron v. 321 Henderson Receivables), a California Court of Appeals has unanimously affirmed one portion of a California Superior Court judgment sustaining demurrers by J.G. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 12:15 am
In Zhang v. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 8:41 pm
Timing of breaks.Meal Breaks The California Supreme Court made clear in Brinker Restaurant Group v. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 8:41 pm
Timing of breaks.Meal Breaks The California Supreme Court made clear in Brinker Restaurant Group v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 3:19 pm
Under California law, the Federal Employment Housing Act (FEHA) (Calif. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 9:57 am
MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 5:07 pm
In Junkin v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 9:30 am
Yes, the University of California–Hastings College of Law did put out a video of a faux mascot competition. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 11:28 am
Slocum Law Firm LLC, 2:21-cv-01771-JCZ-DPC (E.D. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 5:04 am
Large companies like “Apple” produces a v-e-r-y long list of possible subsidiaries and name variations. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
The Spring 2010 issue of Competition, the journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, is now out. [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 12:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
11 Apr 2007, 6:09 am
Taylor v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 12:22 pm
In Salenga v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 3:00 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 9:22 am
"Big Problems in California's New Law Restricting Employers' Access to Employees' Online Accounts".) [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 10:06 am
State of California. [read post]
29 Aug 2007, 1:18 am
Beasley School of Law) has posted Repressing Erie's Myth (California Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:21 am
In fact, the appeals court disagreed that the plaintiffs suffered no injury in fact under California’s Unfair Competition Law. [read post]