This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
and the admission of new attorneys to the Supreme Court bar. I smiled politely, trying to telepathically assess how she would vote on the gender-affirming care case I covered in December. But the Department added that Ames could not meet the evidence requirements of an employment discrimination case regardless.
In this case, the trial court neither held a hearing nor appointed counsel and summarily denied Lewis’s petition stating “Lewis did not make a primafaciecase for resentencing under Senate Bill 1437 because … he ‘would still be found guilty with a valid theory of first degree murder.'”
Still, the guidelines spend some time on the requirements of a primafaciecase; the necessity of both evidence and reasoning to support any obviousness rejection; and consideration of all evidence before the examiner. Cautioning against: “references to ‘common sense’ without any support.”
Attorneys from each side will typically propose specific instructions and object to those they believe are incorrect or incomplete. I.e. , if the evidence presenting a primafaciecase of obviousness is overwhelming, an appellate court might conclude that a jury instruction omitting some objective indicia was harmless error.
seeking to set aside a district court discovery order piercing attorney-client privilege. After reviewing documents in camera, the district court granted in part Dorel’s motion to compel production of certain Cozy documents listed as privileged on the basis that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied.
in which the court granted review last month and then limited the issue to: “Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the aggrieved employee ( Viking River Cruises, Inc. Uber Technologies, Inc. ,
If cert is granted, this would be a very important case. 23-574): This case examines whether attorney fees can be awarded based on pursuing litigation deemed “baseless” after a magistrate judge’s non-infringement recommendation but before the district judge finalizes that recommendation. Traxcell Techs.
[Two aside notes: (1) A patentee’s own surprise has regularly been used as evidence in these cases, this may need to be further considered; (2) the court looked at unexpected results in its analysis of secondary considerations. He was joined on the briefs by K&E attorneys Bill Burgess and Christopher Jagoe, and Jeanna Wacker.
A concurring justice asserted that “statistical evidence can be sufficient on its own to make a primafaciecase.” The defendant claimed in his writ petition that the prosecution violated the RJA by seeking the death penalty against him. ” Arbitration unconscionability. The court also declined to hear Haydon v.
and California Supreme Court decisions holding it unconstitutional for an attorney to racially discriminate in peremptorily challenging prospective jurors. The superior court ruled the defendant had not made even a primafaciecase of discrimination and thus did not require the prosecutor to justify his challenge.
The 62-page unpublished opinion of the Fourth District, Division One, addressed several issues, so it’s not clear why Justice Liu wanted to hear the case, but one of the issues has been of repeated interest to him. ” Three years ago, Justice Liu issued a separate statement in a case raising a similar issue. c)(1); People v.
The defendant argued unsuccessfully that the inconsistent positions required disqualification of the district attorney’s office and that the inconsistency, which was not disclosed to the jury, deprived him of a fair penalty phase verdict. The court concluded, “The evidence was ambiguous as to the shooter’s identity. .”
In another case involving the Racial Justice Act (see Montgomery above and Avalos below), the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in In re Naddi , a pro per’s habeas corpus petition. ” (Link added.) Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d); see In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d
Supreme Court’s Batson decision and the California Supreme Court’s Wheeler decision establish that it’s unconstitutional for an attorney to racially discriminate in peremptorily challenging prospective jurors. The prosecution used peremptory challenges to excuse five Black women from the jury.
In an on-screen world where the storyline of the central character has only gone from bad to worse and the plotlines have morphed into “good” versus “evil” narratives, the all-powerful superhero Attorney General Merrick Garland will sooner or later have to do battle with the all-powerful supervillain Donald J.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content