Search for: "Stores v. State" Results 961 - 980 of 13,425
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2013, 7:00 am by Steven B. Katz
Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (2007), cert. denied sub nom Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 4:03 pm by Adam Kielich
Last week the United States District Court Northern District of Texas granted Target summary judgment in Sandoval v. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 1:17 pm
"I guess having the state buy you meat -- or, more likely, meat-like items -- for six years is another way to go "camping" too. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 2:23 pm by Jeff Kosseff
” If enacted, such a legislative reform would bring the statute into alignment with the 2010 decision of the Sixth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 11:43 am by Karen Gullo
The state stores arrestees’ DNA samples indefinitely, and allows access to DNA profiles by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 11:58 am
Yosemite Avenue, Manteca, CA 95337 * 338 McHenry Avenue, Modesto, CA 95354 * 3833 McHenry Avenue, Modesto, CA 95356 * 1420 V Street, Merced, CA 95340 * 2651 Greer Road, Turlock, CA 95382 The State is attempting to suspend the licenses of these stores. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 3:13 am by traceydennis
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, R (on the application of) v Tesco Stores Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 841 (29 July 2010) Tchenguiz & Ors v Imerman [2010] EWCA Civ 908 (29 July 2010) Aylott v Stockton- On- Tees Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 910 (29 July 2010) GR & Ors (Children), Re [2010] EWCA Civ 871 (29 July 2010) W (Algeria) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 898… [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 11:07 am by Matthew Kahn
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, concluding that it was bound by its 2010 decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2021, 9:37 am by Eugene Volokh
From the Eleventh Circuit's decision yesterday in Anderson v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 3:07 pm by Sheppard Mullin
In the recently published Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, the California Court of Appeal held that an employee could sue her employer, 99¢ Only Stores, for failure to provide “suitable” seating during her employment. [read post]