Search for: "California v. Force"
Results 1681 - 1700
of 6,450
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2019, 9:36 am
Later, the Court of Justice of the EU brought a bit more balance into that analysis with its Huawei v. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 2:53 pm
We've seen this case before: Engine Manufacturers Association v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 10:16 am
In 2013, in Chevron v. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:12 am
Most puzzling is City of Newport Beach, California v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE City of Oakland v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 7:07 pm
Where the brief cites the 1941 decision in Hines v. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 6:29 am
A federal magistrate judge in California has ordered Uber to comply with two NLRB subpoenas related to the agency’s investigation into unfair labor practice charges lodged against the rideshare company—namely, allegations that it violated the NLRA by forcing drivers to sign a licensing agreement with a mandatory arbitration policy that waives their right to bring class or collective claims (NLRB v. [read post]
16 Nov 2008, 1:05 pm
In Charleston v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 11:08 pm
Yesterday the US District Court for the Northern District of California held, in Perry v Schwarzenegger, that Proposition 8 (wiki) was incompatible with the US Constitution. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 7:00 am
Nelson v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 7:00 am
” In Kyllo v. [read post]
24 Jul 2021, 2:46 pm
From Brach v. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 2:38 pm
Today’s first petition of the day is: Title: Werner v. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 2:28 pm
There's a California statute (Section 22210 of the Penal Code) that specifically says that you're not allowed to sell or possess a billy. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 12:48 pm
Lee defeats (26) California v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 11:16 am
A case from 1899 involving the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Popper v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 4:41 am
Kidde, 2014 WL 703514 (California Court of Appeals 2014). [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 12:43 am
12/10/09 AP: In Balde v. [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 3:31 pm
This may require security officers to remain on the premises and on call during paid rest periods, and to carry and monitor a communication device… it is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate, for the security services industry only, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Augustus v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 11:36 am
Nothing from the Ninth Circuit or California Court of Appeal so far today.So let's go back a tiny bit and give a cheer for Justice Aronson.The first paragraph of this opinion makes crystal clear both what the case is about as well as what the relevant rule is:"May a trial court find a waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine when the objecting party submits an inadequate privilege log that fails to provide sufficient information to evaluate the merits of… [read post]
