Search for: "ARIAS V. STATE"
Results 81 - 100
of 174
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2009, 5:03 am
” Arias v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 7:54 am
In 2009, the California Supreme Court in Arias v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 4:53 pm
’” Due to the differences between class actions and PAGA representative actions, the California Supreme Court has held that PAGA plaintiffs need not meet class action certification requirements when pursuing PAGA penalties in Arias v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 7:21 am
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)In his pun-filled, 10-page decision in Lee v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 10:00 am
Arias, OATH Index No. 920/15, [adopted.] [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 11:44 am
Ralphs Grocery Co., 197 Cal.App.4th 489 (2011) – previously discussed here and here – and Arias v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 8:46 pm
On Tuesday an FACDL team (Ben Waxman and Maggie Arias) argue for the retroactive application of Padilla before the Florida Supreme Court in Diaz v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
See Castillo-Arias v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 8:55 am
Because claims brought under PAGA are considered representative actions, not class actions, the California Supreme Court has held in Arias v. [read post]
12 Jul 2008, 1:25 pm
State v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:16 am
" Franco v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 10:49 am
” The case is Arias – Villano v. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 11:56 am
Recently, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review in Arias v. [read post]
9 Sep 2024, 6:20 am
CASE #3 - State of CA v. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 4:12 pm
In Carpenter v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 10:15 am
Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Tex. 2008) (affiant swore that facts were "true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and belief," did not show that facts were based on her personal knowledge, and recited hearsay); Ryland Grp., Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 9:09 am
387; see Arias v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 5:10 pm
Arias v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
” As simply stated in Seran v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 10:16 pm
At the end ofthe post, we stated that we were not convinced by the reasoning in the judgement. [read post]
