Search for: "Miller v. California" Results 81 - 100 of 1,585
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2010, 8:13 am by Steve Hall
  The webpage is titled, "CDCR's December 8, 2010 Response to ACLU Public Records Act Request: ACLU v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 8:50 am by Matt C. Bailey
Miller of the Southern District of California entered an interesting order in response to the plaintiff’s request to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law wage claims in Weltman v. [read post]
22 Jul 2020, 3:01 pm by Arthur F. Coon
For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 12:11 pm
When Justice Aronson wrote this opinion for the Court of Appeal over two years ago, I promptly posted that this decision "puts a fair amount of bite" back into the 'vexatious litigant' provisions of CCP 391.3 by allowing the judge to weigh the evidence when deciding whether to require the plaintiff to post security, and argued that the California Supreme Court should grant review to resolve the split in the Court of Appeal and decide whether Justice Aronson was right.It… [read post]
19 May 2020, 3:48 pm
There's only a single published opinion from the Ninth Circuit and California appellate courts today. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 3:12 am by Amy Howe
Louisiana, in which the Court is considering whether its 2012 ruling in Miller v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1450; 2A Miller & Starr, Cal. [read post]
12 May 2016, 9:59 am by Arthur F. Coon
For nearly all that time, the firm also has written Miller & Starr, California Real Estate 4th, a 12-volume treatise on California real estate law. [read post]
7 May 2009, 7:00 am
The California Court of Appeal held that Section 313 "essentially tracks" the three-prong test for obscenity articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
”Raven should be considered alongside the 2009 ruling (almost two decades later) in Strauss v. [read post]