Search for: "California v. Nguyen" Results 101 - 120 of 148
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Dec 2010, 9:06 am by Heather Darsie
I have reviewed case law in California and Florida, and have consulted the Illinois Compiled Statutes.In the case of Phu Van Nguyen v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 5:06 pm
 Joined by Judges Silverman, Graber, Tallman, Clifton and Nguyen. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 9:10 am by Eric Goldman
The claims arising out of YouTube’s services, which include all of the claims here, must be brought in California. * Daniel v. eBay, Inc. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 4:05 pm
Similarly, the right to have a verdict in a medical malpractice case that accounts for inflation is recognized by the court in Nguyen v. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 12:54 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
Contrast the reasoning and result in this case with Tompkins v. 23andMe and Nguyen v. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 7:52 am by Peter Breslauer
As Judge Nguyen’s dissent saw it, the proponents of applying non-California law to class members outside California—here, objectors to the settlement—had the burden of establishing that individual state-law questions predominated. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 2:46 pm by Eugene Volokh
Tan Duc Nguyen (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that the wide distribution of a letter among Latino immigrants warning "that if they voted in the upcoming election their personal information would be collected" and could be provided to anti-immigration organizations constitutes sufficient evidence to find unlawful intimidation under California law); U.S. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 7:25 am by Lawfare Staff
Over at The Diplomat, Wu Shicun argues that the jurisdictional ruling in Republic of Philippines v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:58 am
District Court for the Northern District of California:  U.S. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 5:29 pm by The Complex Litigator
The threshold question of whether a class representative is entitled to a fee in a California class action was recently answered in the affirmative in Clark v. [read post]