Search for: "Johnson v. State of California" Results 1321 - 1340 of 1,508
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2009, 6:00 am
LEXIS 78973 (ED CA, Sept. 3, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge recommended rejection of a prisoner's free exercise claim, finding that he had not described how restrictions on his access to Native American religious services burdened his ability to practice his religion.In Johnson v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 7:28 pm
I am always a bit humbled when a victim of food poisoning stands up to the corporations who poisoned them with food – especially food labeled “triple washed” and “ready to eat. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 10:00 pm
Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:08CV00930DAK, 2009 U.S. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 11:03 am
Holding that a state donor insemination statute must be construed to allow the former lesbian partner of a woman who conceived two children during their relationship to seek a legal determination of parental rights, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in Shineovich v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 9:09 pm
Labor Law Class Action Against Water Storage District Properly Dismissed by Trial Court because Water District Subject to Federal Labor Laws but not State Labor Laws California State Court Holds Plaintiff filed a putative class action in California state court against his employer, Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (the District), alleging violations of California’s labor code; the class action complaint alleged that defendant failed to… [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 3:55 am
--Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of WisconsinOpinion Date: 6/9/09Cite: The Clorox Co. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2009, 8:26 pm
Johnson (University of California, Davis - School of Law) has posted How Racial Profiling in America Became the 'Law of the Land': United States v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 3:56 am
Jackson and State v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 7:04 pm
Had the co-workers' evidence been less similar, the court might have decided their admissibility a different way.The case is JOHNSON v. [read post]