Search for: "In re Cal. E." Results 861 - 880 of 1,067
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2024, 10:00 am by Eric Goldman
Recall that Zeran sued AOL for negligence for not handling the e-personation better; and the court said that AOL’s continued publication of the e-personation, even after AOL said it wanted to remove it, was still its publication decision. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 3:47 am
 A10334 Lancman -- Allows N.Y. state residents to receive change or update in subdirectory of level 2 and 3 sex offenders by e-mail in specific locality at no charge Same as S 2263 Last Act: 03/19/08 referred to correction Last Action Date: 03/25/08(Results Count = ) Bill No. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 1:16 pm
Eu (Cal. 1991), the California Supreme Court held that, in the case of legislators, the right to earn pension rights on the same terms begins when the legislators first begin their service, even though legislative terms may have begun and ended since then. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 9:37 pm by cdw
Demetirus Charles Howard, 2010 Cal. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 10:36 am by Eric Goldman
Thi E-Commerce, LLC, 2023 WL 5949029 (Cal. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:32 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The Ninth Circuit recently granted re-hearing in the Model Mayhem case, where it originally endorsed a failure to warn theory as not being subject to Section 230. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 12:56 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Recent settlements: skid-e-kids involved a big fine for failure to comply. [read post]
4 May 2009, 1:57 am
Last Act: 04/27/09 REFERRED TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIESS4872 FOLEY -- Provides procedures for resolution of disputes between a public employer and Suffolk county probation officers Same as A 7171-A BLURB : Civ Serv. res ds Sflk Cty pk polLast Act: 04/27/09 REFERRED TO CIVIL SERVICE & PENSIONSS4890 NOZZOLIO -- Provides for binding arbitration for security services collective bargaining unit members who are warrant and transfer officers in the division of parole No Same… [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am by Kevin LaCroix
Cal.), a different Federal District Court judge in California also ruled that the business judgment rule did not apply to officers, based on the plain language of the California statutory business judgment rule which applies only to directors. [read post]