enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_v._Yellow_Cab_Co.

    The case came out of a traffic accident between the plaintiff and the defendant in which both of them had been found to have been driving negligently. The plaintiff (Li) had attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic to enter a service station ; the defendant's (Yellow Cab Co.) driver was traveling at an excessive speed when he ran a ...

  3. In California's largest race bias cases, Latino workers are ...

    www.aol.com/news/californias-largest-race-bias...

    In the last decade, the two largest race discrimination cases brought by the federal government in the Golden State alleged widespread abuse of hundreds of Black employees at Inland Empire warehouses.

  4. California utility faces billions in claims for fire damage ...

    www.aol.com/news/california-utility-faces...

    By Tom Hals (Reuters) - Victims of the Los Angeles wildfires, likely the costliest in U.S. history, are seizing upon a unique California legal doctrine that allows them to collect from their power ...

  5. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West...

    The Harvard Law Review Association, Labor and Employment Law – Worker Status – California Adopts the ABC Test to Distinguish Between Employees and Independent Contractors – Assemb. B. 5, 2019–2020 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2019)(Enacted)(Codified at Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2750.3, 3351 and Cal. Unemp.

  6. California Racial Justice Act of 2020 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Racial_Justice...

    § 745(a)(1): Prohibits racial bias or animus exhibited toward the defendant by an attorney, judge, law enforcement officer, expert witness or juror involved in the case because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. This category includes conduct at any stage of the criminal proceeding, even before trial and after sentencing.

  7. Perez v. Sharp - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

    Perez v. Sharp, [1] also known as Perez v. Lippold or Perez v.Moroney, is a 1948 case decided by the Supreme Court of California in which the court held by a 4–3 majority that the state's ban on interracial marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

  8. Madrigal v. Quilligan - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrigal_v._Quilligan

    The case was not subject to a jury, as the lawyers declined in favor of a decision from judge Jesse Curtis overseeing the case. The judge recognized the language barrier between the defendants and plaintiffs. Judge Curtis ruled that there was no deliberate intent by the doctors to hurt the women. The women in the case were not welfare ...

  9. Serrano v. Priest - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest

    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).