Search for: "Goldstein v. California"
Results 41 - 60
of 560
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2020, 3:39 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 5:21 am
Wurie and Riley v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 3:47 am
” The District Court ruled that Garrigan should have used lawyers in rural Texas, and so Goldstein Demchak had to bill rural Texas, not urban California, rates. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 1:39 pm
Goldstein, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 432.) [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 6:00 am
” —Touche Ross & Co. v. [read post]
11 May 2017, 1:08 pm
He then cites People v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 3:31 am
Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 4:20 am
Anthony List v. [read post]
7 Sep 2018, 3:06 am
’s Initiative 77] “How Regulation Eliminated Your Waiter” [Ira Stoll on California labor laws] 1915 study on Oregon: “The belief was very prevalent among store women that the minimum wage had wrought only harm to them as a whole. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 6:38 am
Perry (holding that the proponents of California’s ban on same-sex marriage lacked standing to defend it on appeal). [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 9:20 am
See, e.g., Imbler v. [read post]
Updated: Amicus briefs in support of the Proposition 8 respondents and DOMA respondent Edith Windsor
1 Mar 2013, 7:37 am
Kevin Russell, also of Goldstein & Russell, filed an amicus brief on behalf of former senators in support of the respondents in United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 3:06 pm
Perhaps the vigor of the Court’s resolution of DIRECTV, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 10:28 am
For some analysis for the decision, go the California Punitive Damages blog.) [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 10:31 am
Superior Court of California (about personal jurisdiction). [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:27 am
Perry; Kevin Russell of the law firm Goldstein & Russell, P.C. was among the counsel on an amicus brief filed by former senators in support of Edith Windsor in United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 9:19 am
At its Conference on February 27, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Article III standing in class actions, exemption from California’s campaign finance disclosure requirements, and the retroactive application of Miller v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 8:00 pm
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 4:22 pm
In Lawrence v. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 7:47 am
It would also adopt certain aspects of the California state court decision of Dynamex Operations West v. [read post]