Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A climate change law (AB1395) named the California Climate Crisis Act failed to pass, but a similar bill (AB1279) with the same name passed in 2022; California HOME Act (SB9), which creates a legal process by which owners of certain single-family homes can create additional units on their property, and prohibits cities and counties from ...
Source: California Secretary of State [1] Proposition 4 , titled Authorizing bonds for safe drinking water, wildlife prevention, and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks , was a California ballot proposition and legislative statutes that passed by vote on in the 2024 general election on November 5, 2024.
Proposition 5 is a California ballot proposition that was voted on as part of the 2024 California elections on November 5. It failed, with 55.0% of voters voting "no." [ 1 ] If passed, the proposition would have amended the California Constitution to reduce the supermajority requirement from two-thirds of the vote to 55% for local bond measures ...
Most of the time unemployment benefits are protected from wage garnishment. In some cases, unemployment benefits can be garnished if you owe income taxes, student loan debt or child support.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation was the primary supporter and financial backer of this year's Proposition 33, as well as 2018 California Proposition 10, and 2020 California Proposition 21; all similar rent control proposals designed to overturn the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which all failed with almost identical margins (60-40), while ...
If you collect Social Security, your payments are subject to the same garnishment rules that apply to other types of income.This means your benefits can be withheld to enforce your legal ...
In terms of court-ordered child support or alimony: The Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) allows garnishment of up to 50% of your benefits if you are supporting a spouse or child apart from ...
Lange v. California, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the exigent circumstances requirement related to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled unanimously that the warrantless entry into a home by police in pursuit of a misdemeanant is not unequivocally justified.