Search for: "Legislature of State of California v. Padilla"
Results 1 - 20
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2020, 12:34 pm
So the only way to solve the problem is (1) to put the issue on the ballot -- which couldn't effectively happen in time, or (2) ask the California Supreme Court for relief.So, not surprisingly, the Legislature does the latter. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
Padilla I In Crest v. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
Padilla I In Crest v. [read post]
17 May 2022, 12:15 am
Padilla, L.A. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 8:52 am
On May 13, 2022, in Crest v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:29 pm
The California Supreme Court, in the case Greenman v. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 6:36 am
Padilla, in which the Los Angeles County Superior Court held that California’s statute requiring women on corporate boards violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause. [read post]
23 May 2022, 11:12 am
In Crest v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 10:01 am
The case is Patterson v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:22 am
” Wilson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2022, 12:37 pm
Yes, this is the same Crest v. [read post]
5 Apr 2022, 9:03 am
Crest v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 3:25 pm
Proposition 49 is a valid exercise of the Legislature’s investigatory authority under the California Constitution. [read post]
19 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Padilla, Case No. 19STCV27561, that California’s statute requiring California-based public companies to have one to three women on their boards of directors (S.B. 826), depending on their board size, violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
Padilla (Crest – SB 826). [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 1:34 pm
Supreme Court’s Regents of the University of California v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 11:36 am
Robin Crest, et al. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 9:53 am
In United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 5:39 pm
Padilla). [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 12:15 am
Crest v. [read post]
