Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
On appeal from the Supreme Court of California. 27 Cal.2d 478, 165 P.2d 3: Subsequent: As amended. Rehearing denied, 332 U.S. 784, 68 S. Ct. 27, 92 L. Ed. 367, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 1986 (1947) Holding; The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state ...
[12] [13] An alternative writ and order to show cause are identical in effect, but semantically slightly different; an alternative writ directs the trial court either to comply with its terms or show cause why it should not be ordered to do so, while an order to show cause only directs the trial court to show cause why the relief should not be ...
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 final since it necessarily leaves some issues to be decided at trial. There is currently a ...
Holding; To survive a motion for a summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking damages for a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act must present evidence "that tends to exclude the possibility" that the alleged conspirators acted independently, such that the inference of a conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed ...
A survey conducted in October 2018 by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California found that 28% of eligible California voters believed that the lack of rent control was the main contributing factor to California's housing affordability crisis. 24% of respondents believed that the most significant cause of the housing crisis ...
See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(f)(1). Regardless whether the dispositive motion is for summary judgment or adjudication, the motion must be supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are also under oath, admissions of fact by the opposing party and other discovery such as interrogatories ...
The Supreme Court handed down its 5–4 decision upholding the state law on February 10, 1947. The decision was the first to hold that the Establishment Clause was applicable against the states. It is also remembered as the first Supreme Court case to attempt an explanation of the Establishment Clause. [4]
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), was a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because that person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954.