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 problem, however, was that these insights were impossible to access, especially for attorneys at the state trial court level. There was no effective way to perform practical legal research on state trial court records. State trial court was too scattered, too clunky and too inconsistent to prove useful. The result?
Amid an existing battle over lookalike logos , Walmart and Yeezy are facing off in court, as well, after Yeezy and its founder Kanye West filed suit against Walmart and a handful of unnamed third-party Walmart sellers over the sale of copycat Yeezy foam runner footwear on the retail behemoth’s third-party marketplace site.
In California, a motion for sanctions may be one of the most successful methods for dismissal. The responsive pleading can be in the form of an answer, a demurrer, or a motion. Complaints are rarely dismissed based on demurrers in California. Complaints are rarely dismissed based on demurrers in California.
By following its details closely, we can begin to unravel the strategic importance of judicial research and analytics for civil litigation at the state trial court level. By following its details closely, we can begin to unravel the strategic importance of judicial analytics for civil litigation at the state trial court level.
Ruling on 185 matters at yesterday’s conference, the Supreme Court straight granted one case, depublished the opinion in another, and took other notable actions. Speedy trial dismissal The court granted review in People v. The Supreme Court denied review in Gutierrez and Clark. Clark (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d See below.))
.” Many years after his journalism career, the article relates, Pickett moved to California, and, “In the mid-1870s, he started a fight during a trial before the California Supreme Court by seizing one of the justices and dragging him off his seat on the bench.” ” ( Pickett v. Hastings (1874) 47 Cal.
At its conference yesterday, a double one, the Supreme Court’s actions of note included: Taxpayer standing. The court granted review in Raju v. ” The delays at issue began after a three-month COVID-pandemic shutdown of the superior court. .” The court will also hear People v. Navarro below.)
District Court [for the Central District of California] that they have agreed to the terms of a preliminary settlement relating to the [plaintiffs’] claims,” a representative for Manchester, UK-based Boohoo Group revealed on Thursday. Boohoo is pleased to report that the parties have notified the [U.S.] The Defendants’ Answers.
For the second week in a row, the Supreme Court’s conference produced no straight grants , but there were some actions of note, including: Supreme Court won’t hear CARE Act challenge. The court denied a petition to transfer to itself a writ proceeding pending in the Court of Appeal. COVID insurance grant-and-hold.
At yesterday’s Supreme Court conference , a double one, actions of note included: Supreme Court partially opens clemency records. The court agreed to hear Naranjo v. The court denied review in Kirchmeyer v. But, after the Supreme Court held in In re Milton (2022) 13 Cal.5th Wage violation penalties.
There were actions of note at the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, uncommonly held during the same week as it heard oral arguments. Those actions included: Supreme Court will hear Prop. Supreme Court OKs LWOP commutation. As the court prepared to issue its opinion in People v. 22 challenge. COVID insurance.
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, a double one, there were no straight grants (the second conference in a row without one), but there were some petition denials of note and a handful of grant-and-holds: Supreme Court disbars attorney who claimed racial discrimination in State Bar discipline.
Actions of note at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference — a double one — included: Supreme Court denies writ petition against Court of Appeal for criminal case delay, but asks for Judicial Council study. The court granted review in People v. The court denied review in In re A.C. ,
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, actions of note included: Four-justice concurring statement leaves open future remedies for defendant who made “disastrous decisions” at trial Employment timekeeping. The court agreed to hear Camp v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th The court granted-and-held Dhital v.
Here are some highlights from yesterday’s Supreme Court conference : Clemency approval : Supreme Court approves another gubernatorial commutation of an LWOP sentence. Confidential medical records : The court granted review in J.M. Illuminate Education. Revived sex assault claims against public entities dissenting vote.
At yesterday’s Supreme Court’s conference , a double one, actions of note included: AB 333 retroactivity. The court agreed to hear People v. where he appeals for a second time after his judgment was conditionally reversed and the Court of Appeal issued a limited remand to the trial court to address sentencing issues?
The court denied review in Martinez v. Division One recognized the federal courts are in conflict on the ADA issue and conceded that the statutory interpretation it was rejecting is “consistent with the general, overall goal of [the ADA].” The court granted review in a pro per prisoner’s case — Gonzalez v.
At its conference yesterday, a double one, the Supreme Court straight-granted review in one case, depublished two opinions, approved a gubernatorial pardon, and saw a separate statement and a host of dissenting votes. The court agreed to hear Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association v. The court denied review in People v.
Lots of action at the Supreme Court’s double conference yesterday. The court ruled on 195 matters, including: LGBTQ discrimination See: Supreme Court wont hear same-sex wedding cake case. Supreme Court to hear the case, according to Bob Egelko’s article in the San Francisco Chronicle. Coleman (1991) 53 Cal.3d
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