Ads
related to: background for pertinent papers in california court cases- Employee Background Check
Providing Clear & Intuitive Reports
To Simplify Your Hiring Process
- Pricing
Find Out Which Pricing Packages And
Add-Ons Suit Your Business Best
- How It Works
Learn More About How GoodHire
Employment Screening Works
- Contact Our Sales Team
Let Our Sales Team Help You Find
The Right Report For Your Company
- Employee Background Check
courtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255; 10 P. 674; (1886), is a historic case in the conflict between riparian and appropriative water rights. Decided by a vote of four to three in the Supreme Court of California, the ruling held that appropriative rights were secondary to riparian rights. [1]
Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press.The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book's content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. [1]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Ads
related to: background for pertinent papers in california court casescourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month