Search for: "Wells v. State of California"
Results 821 - 840
of 12,358
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
Do not hesitate to reach out to Glen Hansen with any questions as well. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 9:05 am
District Court Decision: Perry v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 2:00 am
Earlier this week, California State Senator Noreen Evans introduced a bill, SB 982, to require corporations to issue a report on planned political spending as well as expenditures for the previous fiscal year. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 4:33 am
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., A114623 (Cal. [read post]
24 Dec 2012, 2:16 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 10:47 am
Take the case of Coleman v. [read post]
22 Sep 2024, 5:49 am
A video creator is suing the State of California after his use of a parody of Vice President Kamala Harris was banned. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 12:54 pm
On appeal, the issue was whether California should reconsider a state Supreme Court case, Borer v. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 2:34 pm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 8:42 am
While that decision may well be challenged before the California Supreme Court, it only underscores how California employees have an avenue to try to avoid the impact of United States Supreme Court decisions regarding class actions – PAGA claims. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 5:30 am
While California has not yet expressed an intention to apply, the state has a history of forging its own path in the absence of federal action. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 9:00 pm
See, e.g., Hansen v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
UCL competitor actions are alive and well. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 4:45 pm
Stewart v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 1:36 pm
Noel v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 1:41 pm
Sheets as well as the Ninth Circuit's more recent opinion in Progressive West v. [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 12:48 pm
California v. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 9:59 am
” (Mamou v. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 12:39 pm
Which is perhaps not surprising given what the California Supreme Court has said on this issue, which (as today's opinion explains) is this:"Citing Graham v. [read post]
