Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Initiated in 1968 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Serrano v. Priest (John Serrano was a parent of one of several Los Angeles public school students; Ivy Baker Priest was the California State Treasurer at the time) set forth three causes of action (quotes from the decision).
In May 2016, lawyers for the school students asked the California Supreme Court to reconsider the Court of Appeal reversal and reinstate the trial court's ruling in their favor. [6] On August 22, 2016 the State's highest court declined to review the case in a 4-3 decision, [ 7 ] [ 8 ] thus permitting the Court of Appeal decision upholding the ...
In the 1977 case Abood v.Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court upheld the maintaining of a union shop in a public workplace. Public school teachers in Detroit had sought to overturn the requirement that they pay fees equivalent to union dues on the grounds that they opposed public sector collective bargaining and objected to the ideological activities of the union.
Restitution is available in equity to recover money previously paid to satisfy a court judgment that is later reversed, as the Supreme Court held in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Florida, 295 U.S. 301 (1935). However, the Court therefore noted that equitable defenses are available where it would not be fair to require the money to be returned.
“The government’s request for a massive restitution order is unsupported, unnecessary and unjustified,” lawyers for Hwang argued in a filing to a U.S. court representing the southern ...
Feds seek more than $340,000 from Sherri Papini over a September 2022 restitution order from ... 300,000 in restitution over California kidnap hoax, feds say ... with the government and the court ...
"The court is also mindful of the fact that the court issues a lot of restitution orders and I will say that 95 percent of them, the victim never receives satisfaction.
The U.S. Constitution takes priority over the California constitution so courts may still be obliged to exclude evidence under the federal Bill of Rights. In practice the law prevented the California courts from interpreting the state constitution so as to impose an exclusionary rule more strict than that required by the federal constitution. [3]