Search for: "CALIFORNIA v. WASHINGTON" Results 61 - 80 of 3,469
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2007, 12:39 pm
Oregon, Washington, and Nevada (twice), and I wondered both if the Ninth Circuit would keep up the pace as well as when the California Supreme Court would get in the act.It did. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:45 am by Paul Rosner
”[7]      Citing a California Court of Appeal decision,Haskel, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 3:46 pm by CrimProf BlogEditor
California (Washington Law Review, Vol. 90, 2015, Forthcoming) on SSRN. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 3:39 pm by Josh Blackman
In Part I of this series, I discussed three critical errors in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Washington v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:08 pm by Kali Borkoski
There was extensive coverage of, and a variety of reactions to, the Court’s decision today in Brown v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 12:07 pm by Venkat Balasubramani
How about a consumer request under one of the recently-enacted privacy statutes (of either California or Washington)? [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 8:12 am
Trademark infringement lawsuit - which was originally filed in Washington - was transferred to the Central District of California - Santa Ana Division, pursuant to stipulation by the parties' attorneys. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 5:38 pm
The Washington State Supreme Court, on the other hand, has recently ruled in favor of the consumer in Gandee v. [read post]
16 Dec 2021, 12:26 pm by Kevin Kaufman
If a Washingtonian flew to California, picked up a rental car, and drove around San Diego, there’s no way that Washington could say that the driver owes the state VMT taxes simply because they’re a Washington resident, since the taxable activity has no nexus with Washington even though the person does. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 1:40 am by Mike
Several Courts in the Northern District of California have recently released cases involving lenders, among them: In Errico v. [read post]
15 Sep 2021, 12:37 pm
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42–43 (2004).Giles v. [read post]