Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In summarising developments leading to the decision of the Supreme Court of California, Judge Stanley Mosk stated: The trial court chose the employees' preferred solution of refusing to enforce the arbitration agreement, but the Court of Appeal sided with the employer and enforced the agreement minus the one provision it found unconscionable.
The California Supreme Court reversed a judgment by the California Court of Appeals, First District, which would have allowed a trial on one of the defamation claims. [2] The lower court's decision was the first opinion to break from Zeran v. America Online, Inc. by holding that Section 230 immunity was not absolute for common law distributors.
In this case involving the arcana of appellate procedure, research scientists Michelangelo Delfino, Ph.D. and Mary E. Day filed an appeal from a $775,000 defamation judgment for tens of thousands of postings they made on their Website and on various Internet message boards criticizing their former employer, Varian Associates, renamed Varian Medical Systems in April 1999; two senior Varian ...
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of ...
Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state.
The litigation, filed directly in the California Supreme Court in an unusual move, comes as advocates have grown increasingly frustrated by the documented inability of many courts to find and hire ...
Taus v. Loftus, 151 P.3d 1185 (Cal. 2007) was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court held that academic researchers' publication of information relating to a study by another researcher was newsworthy and subject to protection under the state's anti-SLAPP act. The court noted that the defendants had not disclosed the plaintiff's ...
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge by Uber and Lyft to lawsuits by the state of California on behalf of drivers who signed agreements to keep legal disputes ...