Search for: "California v. Law"
Results 9621 - 9640
of 32,841
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2018, 8:10 pm
(Hsu v. [read post]
23 May 2018, 6:34 pm
The United States Supreme Court held in California v. [read post]
23 May 2018, 9:57 am
For example, similar rights already existed under English law as a result of s13 DPA 1998 (which afforded data subjects a right to bring direct claims against a data controller for losses caused by a breach of DPA 1998)—this right was interpreted broadly by the English courts as including a right to compensation for non-pecuniary losses of the type contemplated by GDPR (see Vidal-Hall v Google). [read post]
23 May 2018, 5:21 am
My colleague, Gabe Jiran, has a recap of Epic Systems v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 11:13 pm
D&O Diary post on Palkon v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 11:13 am
See Johnson v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 9:51 am
The court made clear in Concepcion and American Express Co. v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 5:20 am
It is true that in Cooper v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 9:05 pm
See Bilida v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 3:12 pm
The main exceptions to the Court’s decision are agency actions (such as actions brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and certain types of state laws (such as California’s Private Attorneys General Act). [read post]
21 May 2018, 2:29 pm
Today’s long-anticipated ruling has its genesis in the 2011 opinion AT&T Mobility Servs. v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 12:34 pm
Murphy Oil USA and Ernst & Young LLP v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 10:42 am
The justice evidently had to cancel her scheduled visit last week to the University of California at Davis, where she was to address the law school commencement, because of her recuperation. [read post]
21 May 2018, 9:15 am
Supreme Court upholds arbitration agreements barring class actions in employment context appeared first on California Employment Law Report. [read post]
21 May 2018, 8:46 am
Greenwood and American Express Co. v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 7:15 am
” Hensley v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 6:00 am
United States v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 6:00 am
Chadbourne, Inc. v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 2:46 am
And Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett, who argued a major case about marijuana at the Supreme Court, Raich v Gonzales, said on his Twitter account that “this is entirely different than Raich, which did not authorize Congress to tell California what its medical marijuana policy must be. [read post]
19 May 2018, 12:09 pm
It would have been preferable to give the Apple v. [read post]
