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
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit temporarily stayed a district court’s preliminary injunction on Saturday that blocked a California law that prohibits concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms in most public places. With this stay, the California law will take effect in January 2024.
A federal judge blocked a California law on Wednesday which would have required background checks for individuals seeking to buy ammunition. The judge found that the California law, known as Proposition 63, violated the US Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Carney issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday blocking a California law that prohibits concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms in most public places. The case is in the US District Court for the Central District of California. This is not the only litigation involving California gun laws.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dissolved a previous stay on Saturday that allowed a California law to go into effect prohibiting concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms in most public places, blocking the law. With this order, the California law will no longer take effect in January 2024.
Last week, we wrote about two dissenting opinions in a Supreme Courtdecision that highlight the debate that is underway on the principles that govern defamation liability in the United States. In that case, the Court struck down a California requirement that charities operating in California reveal to the state their major donors.
Courts in other states had rejected that argument (see our articles on decisions in New York , Florida and Georgia ), but the question of the status of the law remained unresolved in California. In fact, we wrote about Flo & Eddie making exactly that argument against radio broadcasters in California.
Judge Michelle Friedland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Thursday affirmed a district courtdecision as part of a nearly 30-year-long case regarding the rights of disabled prisoners.
September 1, 2023: TILA Disclosures re Index Rates; California Garnishment ; Minnesota Debt Collection December 1, 2023: Bankruptcy December 31, 2023: Utah Data Privacy Musings by Diane Consumer legal protections are rare. – Diane L.
Supreme Court today finds a rule stated by the California Supreme Court eight years ago is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Related: California Supreme Court addresses class action and representative action waivers in Iskanian. denial, Supreme Court’s Iskanian opinion could still get SCOTUS review.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower courtdecision on Monday rejecting an environmental challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The Daily Journal today named the recipients of its annual California Lawyer of the Year award. Three of the cases resulted in Supreme Court opinions. One of the three CLAY award Supreme Courtdecisions is Guardianship of Saul H. 5th 93 — “ Missed break premiums count as wages, State Supreme Court rules.”
The petition for reconsideration was brought by Delilah Diaz, a California woman who was convicted of transporting drugs into the US after the government presented expert testimony to disprove Diaz’s claim that she did not know she was carrying drugs.
But, as John Myers reported in the Los Angeles Times last month, partly because it would be only the second gubernatorial recall to make the ballot in California’s history, “[t]here is very little set in stone” about the election’s logistics. They might not even be citable. (Cf.
The lower court citing Supreme Court precedents in Lathrop v. State Bar of California rejected Taylor’s challenge. The court disagreed and affirmed the lower court ruling stating: Our cases are clear that we may not disregard Supreme Court precedent unless and until it has been overruled by the Court itself.
Solicitor General has criticized a divided California Supreme Courtdecision that interpreted federal law so as to increase the amount of a rental subsidy for certain families. The Supreme Court’s August 2020 decision in Reilly v. Marin Housing Authority (2020) 10 Cal.5th
And the Federal Circuit is thwarting patentees (and innovation) by sending infringement cases away from patentees’ chosen courts in Texas to places that are friendlier to defendants, such as the Northern District of California. As the table below shows, from 2008 through 2021, the Federal Circuit granted 32.0% of the time.
Our Labor & Employment Group reviews a California Supreme Courtdecision that makes it more difficult for employers to dispose of whistleblower retaliation claims.
David Carrillo, the executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law, joined the Maddy Institute ‘s The Maddy Report for an in-depth discussion of the California Supreme Court. Video here.)
In support, Sheetz argued that the Supreme Court’sdecisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n , 483 U.S. The trial court rejected Sheetz’s claim, and the CaliforniaCourt of Appeal affirmed. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S.
Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to a California animal welfare law that requires pork sold in the state to come from humanely raised pigs. According to the Court, the law did not violate the dormant commerce clause in regulating the pork industry outside California. We decline that invitation.
One prohibits the facility from making any discharge that contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality standard for receiving waters, while the other provides that the City cannot perform any treatment or make any discharge that create[s] pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California Water Code section 13050.
This blog post discusses Local Law 154, unpacks Judge Abrams decision, and ends with a refresher on California Restaurant Association v. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held that EPCA preempted a Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas piping in new buildings. California Restaurant Association v.
asked a California federal judge to reconsider his decision in February not to limit Live Nation Inc.'s s COVID-19 business interruption suit to its $1 million annual communicable disease coverage, arguing that recent state appellate courtdecisions make the law clear. Factory Mutual Insurance Co.
Jen Rubin, chair of Mintz's ESG practice group, looks at the recent Californiacourtdecision striking down the state's law mandating corporate board seats for underrepresented communities.
Ross concerns Proposition 12 , a California regulation mandating certain space allowances for pigs. do not satisfy the space allowances, they may not sell pork in California. After the Ninth Circuit ruled against the council, it appealed to the Supreme Court. National Pork Producers Council v.
A California state appellate court recently upheld the trial court'sdecision in The 2009 Metropoulos Family Trust v. Franchise Tax Board that nonresident shareholders of an S corporation source gain.
Those on the wrong end of Supreme Courtdecisions are often disappointed, disgruntled, annoyed, and/or angry. However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to criticize a court opinion. I know this from personal experience. Several times over, in fact.
A new pilot program in Santa Clara County, California hopes to tackle the problem of repeat offenders by simply keeping them in jail longer, reports Ian Cull for NBC Bay Area. McKeown believes it will keep repeat offenders in jail longer, and prevent them from committing more crimes. The pilot program runs through the end of the year.
You might type “privacy law in California.” In the examples I saw, for instance, its suggestions included “How California Is Shaping the Future of Privacy Laws in the US” and “From Silicon Valley to Hollywood: The Impact of California’s Privacy Law on Businesses.”
When it found the trial court didn’t need to reevaluate the defendant’s sentence in People v. Salazar under legislation enacted after the sentencing, the Court of Appeal said, “The Goddess of justice is not wearing a black arm-band today weeping for the California Constitution. ” ( People v.
This means that issues decided at the district or administrative court level can be binding on all other courts: district courts, administrative courts, appellate courts, and even the Supreme Court. District courtdecisions are not binding precedent because they are at the bottom.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower courtdecision Monday approving a class settlement between Google and 18 named plaintiffs involving its “Street View” technology. This settlement was approved by the District Court for the Northern District of California in 2020.
A recent California state appeals courtdecision greenlights the California Privacy Protection Agency's enforcement of California Consumer Privacy Act regulations, which may speed up compliance requirements around new regulations, so businesses considering use of artificial intelligence, for instance, may want to assess their ability to comply with (..)
Representative and individual claims brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act are inseparable when it comes to arbitration, a legal organization told the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, backing Lyft's challenge to a California state appellate court'sdecision preserving a former driver's representative claims.
s bid to arbitrate some claims that its Bluetooth trackers are dangerous because they empower stalkers asked the parties at a hearing Tuesday to brief her on the effect of a recent California appellate courtdecision regarding arbitrability.
If upheld, a California state appellate court'sdecision — finding that Gilead is liable for delaying commercialization of a safer HIV drug to maximize profits on another drug — threatens to undermine long-standing rules of corporate law and exposes companies to liability for decisions based on sound business judgment, says Shireen Barday at Pallas. (..)
Aereo finally lost a courtdecision. This is the first case that Aereo itself has lost, also winning a favorable decision from a District Court in Boston which essentially followed the Second Circuits reasoning (see our summary of the Boston decision here ).
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Monday rejected an appeal over a district courtdecision approving a class settlement between Google and 18 named plaintiffs. This settlement was approved by the District Court for the Northern District of California in 2020.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled Tuesday that the city of Oakland, California, cannot sue Wells Fargo for violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because the city did not adequately show proximate causation. The court’s decision reverses the prior decision of its three-judge panel.
A California federal judge considering whether to approve Walmart's $35 million deal over allegedly inaccurate wage statements asked the retailer Friday to brief him about adding language tailored to a recent state appellate courtdecision that would limit the settlement's release.
He writes on his Election Law Blog about one document in those papers — a 2004 memo to Justice Stevens from his then-clerk (and current California Supreme Court Justice) Leondra Kruger. The memo recommended that Stevens vote to deny certiorari of the Colorado Supreme Courtdecision in Colorado General Assembly v.
Catch up this week with coverage on where California's Private Attorneys General Act stands as a proposed ballot measure call for repealing the law two years after the U.S. Supreme Court'sdecision in Viking River, major takeaways from a pair of recent rulings on the U.S.
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