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
Walmart argues that a demurrer is also warranted because West and Yeezy’s claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which “preempts the cause of action to the extent that [West and Yeezy are] seeking to hold Walmart liable for the conduct of the seller” of the imitation footwear.
City of Riverside to address an issue that’s a perennial favorite of law school moot courts and writing classes — the limits on a bystander’s right to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. ” The Second District, Division Eight, answered “no.” FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th
and more fully explain why that departure is appropriate under current California law.” In Rattagan , the court is expected to answer the Ninth Circuit’s question , “Under California law, are claims for fraudulent concealment exempted from the economic loss rule?” ” Lemon law. ” Lemon law. FCA US LLC.
The legislation amended the law regarding gang enhancements. 5th 469, held, “California’s laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms and ammunition do not violate the Constitution because ‘only law-abiding citizens are included among “ the people ” whose right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment.’
The Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal’s published opinion framed the issues this way: “does the fiduciary board of a county public employee retirement system established under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Public contract depublication. Code, § 31450 et seq. ” Clemency greenlighted.
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