Search for: "City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court" Results 121 - 140 of 366
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2007, 12:26 pm
Superior Court of Los Angeles, in which it significantly reduced the availability of class-action waivers in arbitration agreements for overtime wage litigation. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 4:15 am by Howard Friedman
The Los Angeles Jewish Journal sets out the full text of the decision in Jewish Community Relations Council v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 10:59 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(B245131; 224 Cal.App.4th 1105; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BS131347.) [read post]
23 Aug 2017, 9:00 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The Superior Court for Los Angeles County held, among other things, that Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road had been impliedly dedicated as public streets under Civil Code section 1009. [read post]
23 Aug 2017, 9:00 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The Superior Court for Los Angeles County held, among other things, that Henry Ridge Motorway and the adjacent road had been impliedly dedicated as public streets under Civil Code section 1009. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 6:49 am by Nassiri Law
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, July 14, 2017 by JDSupra More Blog Entries: Carl’s Jr. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 9:25 am
(lead case), Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm
(lead case), Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and ECUSA v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 2:06 pm by Jamie C. Chanin
Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 278, 285 (2003) (affirming that only the county can provide for compensation of employees); Valdez v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 11:08 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The EIR related to general planning and conservation steps resulting from Los Angeles County’s prior approval of a 12,000 acre specific plan and neighboring 1500 acre conservation area in Ventura County. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 9:51 am by Arthur F. Coon
City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 272 — for the first time at oral argument; the quoted language explained that requiring EIRs for ministerial actions would be a wasteful gesture where the agency did not possess enough discretion to deny or modify the project based on environmental concerns raised by the EIR.  [read post]