Search for: "5 Cal.4th 1"
Results 161 - 180
of 1,002
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
(citing Advisory 2008/1 at 5) (emphasis added). [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:40 am
(citing Advisory 2008/1 at 5) (emphasis added). [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 10:34 am
JKB-15-2931, 2015 WL 7454109, at *5 (D. [read post]
1 Mar 2022, 9:13 am
(Citing Cal. [read post]
12 Feb 2022, 5:42 am
Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 79.) [read post]
10 Feb 2022, 10:30 am
Regents of University of Cal., 88 Cal. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:29 am
San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 959, my September 22, 2016 post on which can be found here.) [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:22 am
D077963) ___Cal.App.5th___ (2022 Cal. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 1:30 pm
On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the California judgment is unenforceable for lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) the contract is unenforceable under the Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), General Statutes § 42-134a et seq., and (3) the amount of damages awarded by the trial court was improper. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 10:09 am
(2008) 42 Cal.4th 920; Health & Saf. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1450; 2A Miller & Starr, Cal. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
The only exception is for workers who obtain a medi- cal test each week at their own expense and on their own time, and also wear a mask each workday. [read post]
12 Jan 2022, 6:47 am
Cir., June 1, 2021 ) -- reversing district court’s decision and concluding that: (1) DOJ improperly segmented one large electronic file into separate records and withheld portions as non-responsive; (2) plaintiff had standing to challenge agency’s practice and policy of segmenting records, but issue was unripe for adjudication.RM: As a disclaimer, I argued this case. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2021 4th Quarter cumulative CEQA update. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 11:52 am
California Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 912, 941.) [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm
Rather, with respect to celebrities and world famous political figures, registration is denied based solely on the determinations that (1) “the public would recognize and understand the mark as identifying a particular living individual”; and (2) the record does not contain the famous person’s consent to register the mark.[1] Under this provision, the PTO routinely denies registration to marks that appear calculated to capitalize on the famous person’s name… [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 8:20 am
County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605 (“Horn”), Appellant challenged compliance with due process principles after the City posted the Notice of Right to Appeal on the City’s website and sent e-mails to City Council members and local planning groups, arguing that the process failed to reasonably notify all potentially impacted homeowners. [read post]
15 Nov 2021, 8:05 am
Oct. 1, 2021 [unpublished]). [5] Selane Prods., 2021 WL 4496471, at *1; Mudpie, 15 F.4th at 889 (“Mudpie did not allege that COVID-19 was present in its storefront premises during the relevant period. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am
"[11] Others have disagreed.[12] [5.] [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:04 pm
City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105, 1114; my March 3, 2015 post on that case can be found here.) [read post]
