Search for: "Edwards v. California"
Results 261 - 280
of 1,104
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2016, 1:25 pm
Edward Blum, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the president of the Project on Fair Representation, which provided counsel to the petitioners in Shelby County v. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 2:03 pm
Edward J. [read post]
10 Apr 2021, 6:40 am
On March 19, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Ocegueda v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 8:00 am
California (1941) – Clare PastoreRemaking the “Law of the Poor”: Williams v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:12 pm
In the case Purton v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 11:38 am
Richlin v. [read post]
23 May 2014, 11:44 am
North Carolina, 13-633; Edwards v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm
And the panelists are Edward Ayers (Univ. of Richmond), Daina Ramey Berry (Univ. of California, Santa Barbara), Marvin Dunn (Florida International Univ.) [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 9:49 am
" Frew v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
However, in 2016, the California Supreme Court in Kilby v. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 6:57 am
"Whatever your intent, I'm going to tell you my intent, I had no intent to say go ahead and issue notices," US District Court Judge Edward Chen said during the hearing in O'Connor v. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 11:48 am
In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided Edwards v. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 1:00 pm
Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 802-803 (1974) and United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 8:17 am
Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 9:04 am
The case is Google v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:18 am
Kasky (2002) while she was still a member of the California Supreme Court. [read post]
31 May 2021, 9:01 pm
A little over a year ago, in Ramos v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 12:17 pm
As summarized in a 1955 decision, Reid & Sibell v. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 3:50 pm
As detailed in a recent article on Comedy Club authored by Robert Milligan and Jim McNairy and published in Business Law News ("BLN") Comedy Club is a significant decision because (1) the Court’s ruling relied in part on the so-called “narrow restraint” exception to California’s statutory prohibition against covenants not to compete, even after the California Supreme Court had just expressly rejected the narrow restraint exception in… [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 3:08 pm
In its analysis of Section 16600, the Court focused on the 2008 California Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. [read post]
