enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Young v. Facebook, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_v._Facebook,_Inc.

    Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110, is a pro se internet law case in which the plaintiff sued the social network Facebook following the termination of her user account. In her original complaint, the plaintiff, Karen Beth Young, alleged violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, breach of contract , breach of the implied covenant ...

  3. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center...

    Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to canvass signatures for a petition against United ...

  4. Covenant (law) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)

    A covenant can be terminated if the original purpose of the covenant is lost. In some cases property owners can petition a court to remove or modify the covenants, and homeowner associations may include procedures for removing the covenants. The covenant may be negative or affirmative. A negative covenant is one in which property owners are ...

  5. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nollan_v._California...

    In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.

  6. Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunkl_v._Regents_of_the...

    This case history arose in relation to Cal. Civ. Code §1668, a statute that states "All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."

  7. Roldan v. Los Angeles County - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roldan_v._Los_Angeles_County

    Roldan v. Los Angeles County, 129 Cal. App. 267, 18 P.2d 706, was a 1933 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 such marriages. [2]

  8. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!

  9. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Cabazon_Band...

    If California's regulatory laws prohibited gambling on a criminal basis, then it is likely Public Law 280 would have given the State of California the authority to enforce them on tribal lands. However, as the Cabazon Band argued, California's laws on gambling were civil regulatory laws, and therefore the tribal lands would not in fact fall ...