Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Davis–Stirling Common Interest Development Act is the popular name of the portion of the California Civil Code beginning with section 4000, [1] which governs condominium, cooperative, and planned unit development communities in California.
Bernard Witkin's Summary of California Law, a legal treatise popular with California judges and lawyers. The Constitution of California is the foremost source of state law. . Legislation is enacted within the California Statutes, which in turn have been codified into the 29 California Co
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.
Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case over the issue of gender bias in statutory rape laws. The petitioner argued that the statutory rape law discriminated based on gender and was unconstitutional.
California courts have interpreted "advertising" to include almost any statement made in connection with the sale of goods or services. [24] For example, Chern v. Bank of America held that a loan officer's statement over the phone about interest rates was "advertising". [13] Conversely, Bank of the West v.
California Statutes (formally titled Statutes and Amendments to the Codes) California Statutes (Cal. Stats., also cited as Stats. within the state) are the acts of the California State Legislature as approved according to the California Constitution and collated by the Secretary of State of California.
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts ... such as the need for compromise or catering to special interest ... California Court of ...
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. A class of drivers for a same-day delivery company, Dynamex, claimed that they were misclassified as independent contractors and thus unlawfully deprived of ...