Search for: "Alameda v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 390
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Aug 2015, 10:26 pm
Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v County of Alameda, 2015 WL 4365439 (ND CA 7/16/2015)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Signs Tagged: billboards, Signs [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 8:54 pm
Cnty. of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (1973) (explaining that “a State is not a ‘citizen’ for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction”).Slip op., at 9. [read post]
12 Jul 2007, 4:45 pm
Depirro v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 9:12 pm
Alameda County, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Fong v. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 8:01 pm
See Hicks v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 3:03 pm
Premier Nutrition Corp., 49 F.4th 1300 (9th Cir. 2022) (Sonner II) (same plaintiff re-filed her case in state court (Alameda County); defendant's motion to enjoin state-court proceeding was denied due to uncertainty over jurisdictional issue) Guzman v. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 11:04 am
Since the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Brown v. [read post]
31 Mar 2019, 8:56 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2008, 5:48 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 5:53 am
United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624-25 (1989) (noting and accepting the government’s concession on this score); United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:42 am
County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 717-719, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (holding that California counties are not arms of the state or alter egos of the state for purposes of diversity jurisdiction), overruled in part by Monell v. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 3:33 pm
In United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 2:08 pm
On February 7, 2022 a California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hutcheson v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 4:10 am
In Ali v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 12:24 pm
In the instant action, the district court concluded that the release provision in the 2001 Settlement was intended to bar the claims Emeryville is currently asserting against Sherwin-Williams in a separate action, which the Emeryville Redevelopment Agency filed in 2006 in Alameda County Superior Court (the State Court Action) to recover $32 million in clean-up costs from Sherwin-Williams and others for a different parcel (Site B), but only to the extent the Site B claims… [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 12:20 pm
Zavodnik v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 5:18 pm
Last month, Judge Freedman in Alameda County Superior Court ruled that the State was required to list all the chemicals identified by reference in Labor Code sections 6382(b)(1) and 6382(d). [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 10:34 am
Co. v. [read post]
