Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 7801 - 7820
of 33,829
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2012, 7:26 pm
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court began to address some of the unanswered questions in People v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 1:30 am
John's University School of LawKatherine Schostok, DePaul University College of LawAllison Winnike, University of Houston Law Center 5:00 – 7:00 PM Welcome Reception – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law Friday, June 9, 20177:30 – 8:15 AM Registration & Breakfast – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law 8:15 – 8:30 AM Opening Remarks – Ceremonial Courtroom, Georgia State LawWendy Hensel, Interim Dean and Professor of Law,… [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 2:07 pm
The California Supreme court previously addressed the tension between right of publicity and the First Amendment in Comedy Three Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 9:17 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently denied rail opponents’ petition for review of the STB’s decision (Kings City v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 9:17 am
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently denied rail opponents’ petition for review of the STB’s decision (Kings City v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 5:55 am
Stay tuned: Point of Law will be hosting a roundtable discussing the case later this week. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 3:08 pm
It held the collateral source rule was still the law of California. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 7:56 am
The court cites Boeken v. [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 10:00 am
Google decision (is it still good law after the Supreme Court remand?) [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 8:05 pm
”)] Roger Pilon on NLRB v. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 12:49 pm
Code § 21000, et seq., to the 114 mile high-speed passenger rail line between Fresno and Bakersfield, California is preempted in its entirety by federal law. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 5:30 am
Citing La Prade v. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 10:55 am
Karlan is the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. [read post]
22 Aug 2010, 7:15 pm
The court also found that the purported pro-competitive benefit suggested by defendants – driving down compensation to workers – was not a cognizable procompetitive benefit under the Sherman Act.California v. [read post]
10 Mar 2021, 11:44 am
It takes its name from the famous case, Desny v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 8:02 am
StemExpress had asked the court to order pretrial discovery in the case, something that normally wouldn’t be allowed at this stage under California law. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 6:15 pm
Lee, a former driver for Dynamex, alleged Dynamex improperly reclassified the drivers from employees to independent contractors in violation of California law. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 8:50 am
See Johnston v Kelly. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 10:15 am
Sheppard v. [read post]
