Search for: "CROSS v. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA"
Results 781 - 800
of 1,765
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2015, 9:01 pm
However, the New York Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—muddied the waters in 2010, when it decided Debra H. v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am
Cross-petitions White v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 10:34 am
Superior Court (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797, the Court of Appeal found that discovery may continue after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, although an amended complaint had not yet been filed. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 10:34 am
Superior Court (1973) 34 CA3d 794, 797, the Court of Appeal found that discovery may continue after a demurrer has been sustained with leave to amend, although an amended complaint had not yet been filed. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 5:04 pm
In affirming (after consolidating the District’s and City’s appeals for purposes of filing the administrative record, oral argument and decision), the Court of Appeal issued its lengthy published opinion. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 9:09 am
Indeed, the Third District Court of Appeal in Pulido v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 10:06 am
On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact. [read post]
25 Oct 2015, 12:26 pm
Dimaya v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 4:21 pm
Despite the High Court of Australia suggesting the possible development of a tort of misuse of personal information from the existing equitable action for breach of confidence in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats (2001) 208 CLR 199, this has not eventuated beyond some lower court judgments that were settled before being appealed (see, for example, Giller v Procopets [2004] VSC 113). [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 5:00 pm
The case is pending in the district court in California. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 5:00 pm
The case is pending in the district court in California. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 5:00 pm
The case is pending in the district court in California. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 1:20 pm
It’s not every day you’re involved in a successful eminent domain case before the California Court of Appeal. [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 9:37 am
The California Court of Appeals disagrees. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 12:15 pm
Manning, 14-1132; and Franchise Tax Board of California v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 8:54 am
Although there are certain exceptions, such as one where the government may require disclosure of such information pursuant to a criminal investigation, California’s First District Court of Appeal in Facebook v. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 5:15 am
Trial court issued a summary judgment in favor of city, but the California Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reversed. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 5:08 pm
First, in a July 8, 2015 decision in Acevedo v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 8:50 am
Replacements (Forbes Cross-Post) Telephone Consumer Protection Act Case Update – Summer 2013 Edition Telephone Consumer Protection Act Case Update – February 2013 Edition California Supreme Court: Retail Privacy Statute Doesn’t Apply to Download Transactions – Apple v Superior Court (Krescent) Court: Customer Consents to Receive Texts by Providing Phone Number to Pharmacy – Pinkard v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 7:51 am
Meanwhile California, where the recent case of Diamond v. [read post]
