Search for: "Wells v. State of California"
Results 121 - 140
of 12,192
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2024, 5:21 pm
Class V. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 9:08 am
Colleen Casey, Former Commissioner, California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board The struggle is real. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 2:04 pm
As the Supreme Court memorably put it in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 8:28 am
[Note: the court cites Facebook v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 4:10 am
A suit charging antisemitic discrimination was filed last week in a California state trial court by a retired Brigadier General in the Air National Guard against his former supervisor as well as against the state of California, the California Military Department and California Governor Gavin Newsom seeking $1.6 million in damages and injunctive relief. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 4:08 am
For decades, universities have avoided the type of outright quota the court held unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 2:10 pm
The air fryer industry obtained a notable victory at the trial court level as well. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 10:48 pm
In its 1988 opinion in Midler v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 10:46 am
Constitution which provides that, “The United States shall … protect each [state] against invasion. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 8:49 pm
Trump v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 4:08 pm
(See Donohue v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 10:36 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 4:00 am
He stated: “In your Column, you reiterate the inaccurate, uninformed, and frivolous claim made in the recent California bar complaint that Mr. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm
Employment Liability Claims It is well settled that Section 533 bars indemnification of an insured’s direct liability Section 12940(h) of California’s Government Code, which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for engaging in protected activity under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 9:36 am
Ark. 2019) (stating that “[t]he fact that the [confidentiality] Agreement does not state a time limitation, but instead applies forever, further supports a finding that it is unenforceable”); Howard Schultz & Assocs. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd represented the class as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 10:47 am
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Estrada v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 10:34 am
(See Bruni v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 1:40 am
The Sedlik v. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
You are probably well acquainted with its successor, rule 506.[2] Prior to the adoption of former rule 146 in April 1974, the Commission did not have rules interpreting section 4(2) of the Securities Act.[3] As a result, issuers faced uncertainty in determining whether a sale of securities did not involve “any public offering” and in applying case law on the topic, including the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. [read post]
