Search for: "State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 390
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2022, 12:37 pm by Stuart Kaplow
Last month, the California Secretary of State appealed the decision by a California Superior Court striking down as unconstitutional California’s board diversity law, which required all publicly traded companies headquartered in the State to include a minimum number of female directors. [read post]
”[14] On May 13, 2022, Judge Duffy-Lewis—also of the Los Angeles Superior Court—reached a similar conclusion in a second action also titled Crest v. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
That all changed with the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in the case of Spencer v. [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Like other digital providers, it is not bound by the Communications Act of 1934, a law that requires broadcast television networks to provide politicians equal access to the airwaves. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 6:30 am by Mark Graber
Kansas (1887) and was the lone dissenter in United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  To a political scientist, one way is by viewing it as a power play by the rabbinate, an attempt many centuries before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v Aaron to engage in a performative utterance establishing themselves as the “ultimate interpreters” of the document in question, whether the Torah or the Constitution. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
” On May 13, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis issued a ruling in Crest v. [read post]
12 Jun 2022, 6:29 am
” On May 13, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis issued a ruling in Crest v. [read post]
Padilla I (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV27561) (Crest), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that California Corporations Code Section 301.3 (SB 826), which requires publicly listed corporations in California to have women on their boards, violates the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. [read post]
Padilla I (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV27561) (Crest), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that California Corporations Code Section 301.3 (SB 826), which requires publicly listed corporations in California to have women on their boards, violates the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. [read post]
Padilla I (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV27561) (Crest), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that California Corporations Code Section 301.3 (SB 826), which requires publicly listed corporations in California to have women on their boards, violates the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. [read post]
Padilla I (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV27561) (Crest), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that California Corporations Code Section 301.3 (SB 826), which requires publicly listed corporations in California to have women on their boards, violates the Equal Protection Clause of California’s Constitution. [read post]
1 Jun 2022, 6:36 am by Kevin LaCroix
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]
19 May 2022, 9:01 pm by Virginia Milstead
On May 13, 2022, a judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in Crest v. [read post]