Search for: "California v. American Stores Co." Results 21 - 40 of 345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2010, 3:40 pm by axd10
Bloomberg (Dec. 6, 2010) American Bar Association (ABA): Supreme Court briefs, Wal-Mart v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
This includes plaintiffs’ right to advertise their products on-site — an especially useful form of advertising for sellers and consumers alike.[3] Yet California Penal Code § 26820 (“Section 26820”) prevents a firearms dealer from displaying any “handgun or imitation handgun, or [a] placard advertising the sale or other transfer thereof” anywhere that can be seen outside the four corners of its store. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 6:30 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
 Specifically, the District Court found the named plaintiff Stephanie Odle’s individual claims, and the class claims, could not benefit from the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 7:37 am by Josh Richman
” For the complaint: https://eff.org/document/asian-american-liberation-network-v-smud-complaint Contact:  SairaHussainStaff Attorneysaira@eff.org AaronMackeySenior Staff Attorneyamackey@eff.org [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
Bristol Development Co., 62 Cal.2d 861 (California Supreme Court 1965); Romo v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 6:46 am by Joy Waltemath
Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in American Pipe & Construction Co. v Utah and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v Parker, the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all asserted members of the class, explained the Fifth Circuit. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
American Honda Motor Co., 505 So.2d 358, 361 (Ala. 1987) (cited in Deere). [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 6:11 am
Bristol Development Co., 62 Cal.2d 861 (California Supreme Court 1965); Romo v. [read post]