Search for: "California v. Smith"
Results 61 - 80
of 2,032
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2009, 10:50 am
So here, the question is whether an Oregon attorney who assists a California lawyer in an ERISA action in the Central District of California can be awarded atttorney's fees even though he's not a California lawyer.As you might gather from the rhetoric employed by Judge Smith (which includes the line "Current law does not compel us to be judicial Luddites"), the majority opinion here holds that the Oregon lawyer can, in fact, recover fees. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 1:41 pm
Would your dream panel on appeal in the Ninth Circuit consist of Judges Lee, VanDyke and Randy Smith? [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 7:35 am
(Smith v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 9:28 pm
James Smith, motivational speaker. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 7:49 pm
June 17, 2014) (certification); Smith v. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 12:25 pm
Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:14 am
Update on Gilbert v. [read post]
18 May 2021, 10:25 am
In 2019, the California legislature enacted AB 5 to codify the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex West Operations, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 11:36 am
The California Supreme Court decided today in People v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 6:14 pm
The two California cases are Broughton v. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 12:59 pm
In Christian Medical & Dental Association v. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 6:15 am
On June 22, 2022, the California Supreme Court agreed to resolve this issue on appeal from Estrada v. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 7:38 am
-v.-17-2022-.pdf The volume is edited by the remarkable Selma Moidel Smith, who at 103 years old is at long last retiring from her editorship of the journal. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
STERN v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 2:43 am
PROBATION CAN'T HAVE RIGID POLICIES WHICH AREN'T PARTICULAR TO A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S SITUATION (People v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 5:10 am
As Professor Burch points out in her post, the pending Smith v. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 5:07 am
District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a settlement in Harvey v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 2:11 pm
Similarly, while the narrow holding was that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it allowed some nonconsensual recordings -- particularly, body-worn cameras by police officers -- but not others, most state laws contain the same exceptions.So for states -- including California -- with two-party consent statutes, if the opinion stands, I doubt that most of them would survive. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 12:25 pm
In a recent case, Smith v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 6:47 am
Supreme Court’s ruling in Smith v. [read post]
