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 court issued writs of review in California-American Water Company v. ” The dissent asserted the defendant had made a primafaciecase of, and was thus entitled to a hearing on, racial discrimination in charging Black defendants with felony-murder special circumstance penalty enhancements in Orange County.
Assuring that “[t]he Goddess of justice is not wearing a black armband today weeping for the California Constitution,” a 2-1 Second District, Division Six, published opinion said “[i]t is our Constitutional obligation to affirm a judgment, where a more favorable outcome will not result upon reversal.” 29; see also Cal.
In June we wrote the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ) “is a good candidate to be the next big thing on the courts docket. The order granting the reconsideration petition was made more than 60 days after the petition’s filing, and the then-governing statute provided a petition “is deemed to have been denied.
Rosas Judge Collins / Ninth Circuit / December 10, 2021 Case Overview The case involved Arroyo, a person with a disability, who filed a lawsuit against Rosas for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability.
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