Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rice v. Norman Williams Co., 458 U.S. 654 (1982), was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the preemption of state law by the Sherman Act.The Supreme Court held, in a 9–0 decision, that the Sherman Act did not invalidate a California law prohibiting the importing of spirits not authorized by the brand owner.
As noted above, the initial four codes were not fully comprehensive. As a result, California statutory law became disorganized as uncodified statutes continued to pile up in the California Statutes. After many years of on-and-off Code Commissions, the California Code Commission was finally established as a permanent government agency in 1929.
To avoid confusion as to whether one is citing section 437c (that is, the section with number 437c) or 437(c) (subsection (c) of the section numbered 437), the "subdivision" prefix must be used when citing any subsection of all California statutes.
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") is the name for California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq. [1] The CLRA declares unlawful several "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer". [2]
The term statute of frauds comes from the Statute of Frauds, an act of the Parliament of England (29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677 (authored by Lord Nottingham assisted by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Francis North and Sir Leoline Jenkins [2] and passed by the Cavalier Parliament), the long title of which is: An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.
In the US, under the Uniform Commercial Code, modifications may be made free of the Common Law legal duty rule even without consideration provided that the modification is made in good faith. See UCC § 2–209. [22] [23] However, the Statute of Frauds must be complied with. Thus, a written contract is necessary if the contract as modified ...
De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on February 25, 1976, that challenged Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code. [1] ...
The act provides immunity to the State of California and its related entities from being sued. The law immunizes public employees from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” within the scope of their employment, “even if” the employees act “maliciously and without probable cause.” (Cal. Gov. Code, § 821.6)