Search for: "Clark v. California"
Results 21 - 40
of 695
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2015, 8:26 am
Order, Louise Clark v. [read post]
16 Jul 2008, 11:00 pm
This published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Sixth District) involves a fairly obscure corner of punitive damages law, namely, whether a trial court can require a defendant who is seeking relief from default to post a bond to cover the amount of the plaintiff's punitive damages claim. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 10:13 pm
v=YZcyMgdWmPg. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 1:00 pm
Finisar v. [read post]
1 May 2017, 10:00 pm
The case, filed May 1, 2017, isEagles Ltd v Hotel California Baja LLC et al, U.S. [read post]
13 May 2010, 12:03 pm
California law on the issue is indeed unclear. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 12:53 pm
In Hauseur v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 10:08 am
In Clark v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 5:35 pm
California (2008), as previously in Crawford v. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 7:48 am
California, the Fourth Amendment’s Particularity Requirement, and Search Protocols for Cell Phone Search Warrants William Clark, Boston College, Law School, Students June 30, 2015 Boston College Law Review, Forthcoming Abstract: In 2014, in Riley v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 10:43 pm
A Depublication Request was denied in Clark v. [read post]
6 Aug 2014, 5:15 am
California. [read post]
22 Nov 2021, 4:03 am
Clarke precedent will allow absolutely frivolous contract and other claims to proceed against tribes on the Lewis v. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
Here are some thoughts on the Clark case prompted by reading the reply brief. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 1:21 pm
Here are some thoughts on the Clark case prompted by reading the reply brief. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 3:52 pm
Here's a change: in an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Three), reverses a trial court's determination that the plaintiff's evidence of the defendant's financial condition was insufficient. [read post]
19 May 2010, 3:17 pm
" In other words, the Court will decide whether a current or former employee can personally sue his or her current or former employer for alleged violation of Labor Code section 351.On June 2, 2010, the Court will hear oral arguments in Clark v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 3:49 pm
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Forfeiture After Giles:The Relevance Of “Domestic Violence Context”, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 711 (2009) Giles v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 5:47 pm
Flanagan, We Have A “Purpose” Requirement If We Can Keep It, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 553 (2009) The Supreme Court in Giles v. [read post]
