Search for: "Attorney General v. Superior Court" Results 1141 - 1160 of 3,266
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2017, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed at STAT, Michael Burg weighs in on the court’s recent opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 9:25 am by Karen Jensen
After 40 days of trial spanning over the course of a year and a half, the Court in Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General) ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) to pay general damages of $100,000 and special damages of $41,000 to a member of the RCMP for harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering at the workplace. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 5:30 am by Michel Paradis
For Appointments Clause purposes, that makes his superior the attorney general. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 7:05 am by Bob Bauer
They had come to a rueful admiration of Justice Scalia’s lone dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision, Morrison v. [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 12:59 pm by Erin Connell
On July 13, 2017, the California Supreme Court greatly expanded the scope of discovery available under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 9:07 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Even if your products liability lawyer brings the initial claim in the Suffolk County Superior Court (our trial court of general jurisdiction for Boston, Chelsea and Revere), the defendant will likely remove the case to federal court, as they believe they will have a better chance with federal law. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 6:47 am by Aaron S. Marines
Pennsylvania Courts just announced an important victory for farmers in the case of Branton v. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 9:12 am by Thomas Kaufman and Melissa Smith
Superior Court, in which it clarified the scope of discovery in actions brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code § 2698 et seq., also known as PAGA. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 9:09 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by placing unreasonable restrictions on the plaintiff's right to seek discovery of percipient witness names and contact information in an action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). [read post]