Search for: "Wall v. State of California" Results 881 - 900 of 1,415
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Sep 2012, 5:40 am by Rob Robinson
 http://bit.ly/Q3mYPY (Dennis Kiker) States Enacting Rules on Use of Electronic Data in Medical Liability Cases – http://bit.ly/NztMYc (IHealthBeat) Technology Review: A FrameWork for Managing People, Technology and Processes - http://bit.ly/NrQlhv (Lynn Frances) Tips for Identifying and Preserving ESI – http://bit.ly/OXF9Xj (James Bernard, Michael Quartararo, Jason Vinokur) Twitter Contempt Sanctions Increase Need for Social Media Governance Plan… [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 8:45 am
 In my view, federal courts are unduly sensitive to claims of prior restraint while states like California and Ohio have been more inclined to balance the various interests in these disputes. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 3:30 am
The Wall Street Journal quoted Judge Castillo as stating "In today's world, the most valuable thing that anyone has is technology…The most important thing this country can do is protect its trade secrets. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 12:18 pm by Venkat
CUS Nashville" "Facebook Messages/Wall Posts, Civil Discovery, and the Stored Communications Act -- Crispin v. [read post]
26 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm by INFORRM
The Court held that this was unconstitutional in the unusual case of United States v Alvarez (11-2010 06/28/12), in which a local official in California had claimed to have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, when he had not even undertaken military service. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 6:21 am by Carlos A. Kelly
In 2006, the Florida Legislature enacted several statutes in response to the United States Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 6:47 am by Brian A. Hall
Following a trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the Defendant prevailed. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 9:39 pm
Thus, a ruling by a California state trial court, granting summary judgment to Domino’s on the injured employee’s claims, was reversed.The injured employee claimed that both the franchisee and Domino’s were the employers of the harassing employee and were vicariously liable for his actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. [read post]