Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), [1] decided the same day as Ewing v. California (a case with a similar subject matter), [2] held that there would be no relief by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.
[63] The president of the California Federation of Teachers (the AFT's California affiliate) blamed the Vergara lawsuit for fostering a teacher shortage in the state, and then said, "[w]e can now turn closer attention to solving the actual problems we confront in our schools, such as securing adequate funding . . . reducing class sizes ...
In United States federal courts, involuntary dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 41(b). Involuntary dismissal is made by a defendant through a motion for dismissal, on grounds that plaintiff is not prosecuting the case, is not complying with a court order, or to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The California Constitution at the time said (in Article I § 13), "in any criminal case, whether the defendant testifies or not, his failure to explain or to deny by his testimony any evidence or facts in the case against him may be commented upon by the court and by counsel, and may be considered by the court or the jury."
Motion to suppress denied; reversed, California Court of Appeal; reversed, 136 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2006); cert. granted, 549 U.S. 1177 (2007). Holding; Automobile passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when the car in which they are riding is held at a law enforcement traffic stop. California Supreme Court vacated and ...
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. [1] [2] On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of ...
The California courts have long grappled with the appropriate standard for determining whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or an independent contractor for the purpose of California’s employment laws. At common law, the employment relationship was determined by the degree of control over the details of the work being performed.
California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.