Search for: "California v. Law" Results 8961 - 8980 of 33,016
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Oct 2018, 8:04 am by Eric Goldman
Above the Law * Don’t Roll The Dice On Defamation Suits Against Gripe Sites, Especially In California–Ocean’s Eleven v. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 7:02 am by Florian Mueller
" And then they quote from a decision the District Court of Massachusetts made in August 2016 in Esoterix v. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 5:01 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Justices said this program was subject to the reasonableness requirement of Fourth Amendment.In other words, the California Supreme Court said, the key to the lawfulness of such tests was whether the drug testing program was a constitutionally permissible search. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 5:01 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Justices said this program was subject to the reasonableness requirement of Fourth Amendment.In other words, the California Supreme Court said, the key to the lawfulness of such tests was whether the drug testing program was a constitutionally permissible search. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 5:52 am by Florian Mueller
The FTC explains that, under California law, parol evidence only matters if a given practice is "certain and uniform," and then points to how Qualcomm's own agreements with SEP holders prove the opposite:"Over 100 companies, including major SEP holders, have licensed Qualcomm itself to make and sell modem chips. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 5:52 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Saturday, September 29, 2018 Tags: Capital markets, Cryptocurrency, Derivatives, Disclosure, Engagement, Exchange-traded funds, Human capital, Investment advisers, Oversight, Retail investors, SEC, US House The SEC and Foreign Private Issuers: A Path to Optimal Public Enforcement Posted by Yuliya Guseva (Rutgers), on Sunday, September 30, 2018 Tags: Compliance and disclosure… [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 4:08 am by Edith Roberts
Miriam Siefert analyzes Wednesday’s argument in Knick v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 12:01 pm
  Okay.But the Ninth Circuit says it might still violate California false advertising law to thereafter say "No Trans Fat" on the packaging -- outside the box -- when the food does indeed contain trans fat.Fair enough as well. [read post]