Search for: "United States v. California"
Results 1641 - 1660
of 13,833
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2024, 12:35 pm
United States, et al. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 3:33 pm
Bureau of Land Management (Administrative Procedure Act)United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:27 am
The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a class action claim brought by a financial advisor employed by a major financial services company. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 7:13 am
United States (1908) and Indian trust doctrine under United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 3:04 pm
Related posts:Obscure Patents: KSR Does Not Mean MuchSo much has been made about the United States Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 12:25 pm
Bilski I wrote previously about my uneasiness with the United States Supreme Court’s apparent unfamiliarity with current technology. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 11:40 am
In Arizona v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 5:12 am
In Kiobel v. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 4:18 pm
Baker (1818) 16 U.S. 541, 545); quite recently, it determined that a fish is not a “tangible object” (United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 3:58 pm
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
30 May 2015, 7:13 am
California has a wide of industries that make the state a great place to live and work. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 2:22 pm
Rogers v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 7:59 am
As discussed here, on May 18, 2011, the California Intermediate Court of Appeal held in the Luther v. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 1:28 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 7:36 am
Substantially the same issue came up several years later, in United Firefighters of Los Angeles City v. [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 10:28 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 8:49 pm
Order here. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 1:41 pm
Especially when the matter is relatively unimportant (at least in the scheme of things) and it's more critical to have a solid, articulated rule than it is for that rule to be precisely right.Right or wrong, until the United States Supreme Court speaks, or until Congress amends the statute, the rule in California is now clear. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 9:55 am
AB 5 modifies how workers are classified as employees or independent contractors for state law purposes and codifies the 2018 California Supreme Court decision known as Dynamex. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 1:42 pm
The Court may well look to the California Supreme Court’s Brinker v. [read post]
