Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Grant or denial of motion for summary adjudication or denial of motion for summary judgment [22] Grant or denial of motion for good faith settlement determination [23] Denial or partial grant of a special motion to strike in a malicious prosecution action predicated off a lawsuit which was dismissed through a special motion to strike [24] In ...
Also, California uses the term "summary adjudication" instead of "partial summary judgment". The California view is that the latter term is an oxymoron since a judgment is defined by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 577 as the "final determination of the rights of the parties" [17] and a "partial summary judgment" is not actually ...
Vergara v. California was a lawsuit in the California state courts which dealt with a child's right to education and to instruction by effective teachers.The suit was filed in May 2012 by lawyers on behalf of nine California public school student plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California.It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, [1] but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. [2]
Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial. [ 5 ] In United States federal courts , JMOL is a creation of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 26150, 26155) before issuing a ...