Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a series of class action lawsuits, uninsured patients alleged that several of California's largest hospital chains imposed exorbitant fees for medical care and engaged in price gouging. Under settlements reached in cases in 2006–2008, almost a million patients received refunds or bill adjustments, and millions more benefited from reduced ...
Plata v. Newsom, Docket No. 4:01-cv-01351-JST (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit alleging that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) medical services are inadequate and violate the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The lawsuit was settled without money changing hands and without changes in school policies. [15] Perry v. Schwarzenegger. ADF represented Proposition 8 proponents ProtectMarriage.com in the Federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the proposition, which limited marriage in California to one man and one woman. [16]
The legal actions appear to be the first of hundreds, or even thousands, of claims that may arise from the wildfires that have engulfed parts of Southern California in the past week. The lawsuits ...
Coleman v. Brown [2] [3] (Previously Coleman v. Wilson) (), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
The Civil Rights Department filed lawsuits in 2018 and 2021 against Riot Games and Activision, alleging the companies had violated California’s equal-pay and anti-discrimination laws with their ...
A medical school planning to build a $1 billion Natomas hospital using a city of Sacramento financial incentive is facing another lawsuit. California Northstate University, an Elk Grove-based for ...
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 ...