Search for: "CROSS v. CALIFORNIA"
Results 121 - 140
of 3,158
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2010, 9:47 am
However, a recent California Court of Appeal decision, Great American Insurance Company v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:41 pm
For example, in Ellis v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 8:30 am
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court, in Dynamex Operations v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 5:54 pm
Bounds v. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 4:36 pm
In a much anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court held, in Prospect Medical Group, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 10:24 am
Weaving v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 8:58 pm
KFD Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 6:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 4:35 am
There, the Upper Deck co. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 2:30 pm
Typical of these decisions is FDIC v. [read post]
10 Oct 2023, 7:42 am
The case is Sheetz v. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 3:22 pm
But the California Court of Appeal steps up to the plate, and this afternoon published an opinion with a very helpful -- and easily remembered -- pointer for civil litigants.When you're drafting a complaint (or, as here, a cross-complaint), do not ask for damages "according to proof". [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 7:16 am
California state law protects the right to an abortion, and recent legislation also protects those in the state from essentially “aiding and abetting” abortion from individuals who cross state lines to obtain one. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 7:10 pm
The petition of the day is: Alger v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 3:38 pm
The California Public Utilities Commission passed an order that essentially says that railroads can't block an intersection for more than 20 10 minutes (!) [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 8:00 pm
Supreme Court oral argument in Salazar v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 5:40 am
After defendants pointed out that a $4.7 million fee request was unreasonably high after the Bluetooth decision required a cross-check against actual class recovery, a Central District of California judge reduced it to $766 thousand. [read post]
7 Apr 2006, 1:46 pm
Jurado, 2006 WL 870936, a capital case decided yesterday, the California Supreme Court weighed in. [read post]
