Ads
related to: los angeles county court california case
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Applying this test, the Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment that there were sufficient common interests among Dynamex drivers to certify the class. Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court and Charles Lee, Real Party in Interest, 4 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2018) was a landmark case handed down by the California Supreme Court on April 30, 2018.
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County is the California Superior Court located in Los Angeles County. It is the largest single unified trial court in the United States. The Superior Court operates 37 courthouses throughout the county. Currently, the Presiding Judge is Samantha P. Jessner and David W. Slayton is the Executive Officer/Clerk of ...
Los Angeles County. Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1930s court case in California confirming that the state's anti-miscegenation laws at the time did not bar the marriage of a Filipino and a white person. [1] However, the precedent lasted barely a week before the law was specifically amended to illegalize ...
Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 4 Cal. 5th 607, 413 P.3d 656 (2018), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. [1] [2] In an opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan, the Court ...
California Rules of Court, Title 3, Chapter 5, addresses Complex Cases, with Rule 3.400 [40] defining factors for the court to consider in identifying complex cases and listing certain types of presumptively complex cases. The Los Angeles Complex Civil Litigation Program describes a complex case as "a civil action that requires continuous ...
V, XIV. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6–3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.
Ads
related to: los angeles county court california case