Sentences with phrase «california federal court case»

The drama finally culminated in 2017 with victories for Blizzard in a German Supreme Court ruling and a California federal court case that awarded Blizzard $ 8.5 M in damages.

Not exact matches

While the Supreme Court in October 2015 declined to review the case, the justices in January agreed to review a similar one, Salman's case, in which a federal appeals court in California had issued a potentially conflicting ruCourt in October 2015 declined to review the case, the justices in January agreed to review a similar one, Salman's case, in which a federal appeals court in California had issued a potentially conflicting rucourt in California had issued a potentially conflicting ruling.

Taking place in a California federal court, the case pits Apple against the U.S. government over control of the iPhone, with terrorism and privacy as the backdrop.

In March, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two appeals cases related to same - sex marriage - California's Proposition 8, which bans same - sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to same - sex couples.

Hanna joins former Utah governor and presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, HP CEO Meg Whitman and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney in signing the amicus, which is being filed with the Supreme Court as justices prepare to take on several court cases challenging same - sex marriage laws, including the controversial Proposition 8 measure in California and the federal Defense of MarriageCourt as justices prepare to take on several court cases challenging same - sex marriage laws, including the controversial Proposition 8 measure in California and the federal Defense of Marriagecourt cases challenging same - sex marriage laws, including the controversial Proposition 8 measure in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The SEC separately charged the company's former president and No. 2 executive, Sunny Balwani, in a case that will be litigated in federal court in California.

These amicus briefs — one filed in the U. S. Supreme Court in two California cases, the other in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dealing with a Kentucky case — ask the courts to reconsider rulings that misinterpret the main federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Applying a 30 - year - old Supreme Court ruling to a California case, a federal district court found that schools do not have to meet the top level when providing services for students with disabilities - only a basic floor of opportunity.»&rCourt ruling to a California case, a federal district court found that schools do not have to meet the top level when providing services for students with disabilities - only a basic floor of opportunity.»&rcourt found that schools do not have to meet the top level when providing services for students with disabilities - only a basic floor of opportunity.»»

Any legal suit, action or proceeding arising out of, or related to, these Terms of Use or the Website shall be instituted exclusively in the federal courts of the United States or the courts of the State of California in each case located in the City of Irvine and County of Orange although we retain the right to bring any suit, action or proceeding against you for breach of these Terms of Use in your country of residence or any other relevant country.

This is especially likely given the House investigation into the matter, the EPA vs. Mass Supreme Court, and California Federal Court, cases last year, as well as the sheer force of public support for efficiency measures.

In California, where the lawsuits seek billions of dollars to pay for mitigation measures, such as sea walls to protect coastal property, the oil and gas companies responded by seeking to move the cases to federal courts, where nuisance claims are less likely to succeed.

He has litigated disability rights cases in both state and federal courts in California.

Case may have implications as far as the type of information, redacted or not, filed in support of fee submissions in both state and California federal courts.

The group has extensive jury trial experience, having tried numerous cases to verdict in both state and federal court, including several cases recognized by the Daily Journal as top defense verdicts in California.

He has litigated cases in both state and federal court throughout Utah, and has also appeared in cases in Oregon and California.

Although he now spends most of his time in Utah courtrooms, Mr. Tufts continues to actively litigate and try cases pending in California's state and federal courts.

He worked on the appellate briefing in the seminal Potvin case with Henry Fenton and has extensive appellate experience, having worked on many appeals before the California and federal courts.

He has litigated cases in both state and federal courts throughout Utah, and has also appeared in cases in Oregon and California.

Tamara honed her skills at several highly respected litigation firms in Los Angeles and has litigated numerous cases and class actions in California, Washington and the U.S. Federal courts.

Supervising Trial Lawyer / Senior Training Coordinator, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Central District of California (1975 - 1979), tried approximately 60 Federal Court cases involving federal felony and white collar Federal Public Defender, Central District of California (1975 - 1979), tried approximately 60 Federal Court cases involving federal felony and white collar Federal Court cases involving federal felony and white collar federal felony and white collar charges

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture ofederal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture oFederal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

As co-counsel tried federal court antitrust case against Exxon in 1992 on behalf of the City of Long Beach as trustee for the State of California.

Has handled cases or appeared before courts in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and California, in addition to state and federal courts throughout Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina

With a truly national practice, Mr. Geiger has handled cases in state and federal courts in Massachusetts and throughout the country, including Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Washington, DC, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, California, Washington, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, Iowa and Wyoming.

Judge Lippman took great care in his speech to highlight innovations in other states — Texas, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Delaware, Montana and California, in particular, as well as the federal courts on immigration cases — to serve the legal needs of the poor.

Michael has handled complex litigation matters for more than 20 years and has successfully prepared and tried cases to verdict in the state and federal courts of Los Angeles County, Ventura County, San Diego County, Placer County, the Central District of California and the Southern District of California.

She has tried patent, trademark and copyright cases in Federal courts nationwide, including Delaware, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Utah, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, the Federal Circuit and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Linda has tried patent, trademark, and copyright cases in Federal courts nationwide, including Delaware, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Utah, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and the Federal Circuit and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Due to the harsh consequences associated with a federal crime conviction, if you've been accused, it's imperative that you hire a Central California criminal lawyer from McKneely Law Firm who is familiar with the complex federal court system and can increase your chances of a positive case outcome.

We practice in state and federal courts in California and beyond, including multi-district litigation cases heard throughout the United States.

Most importantly, in a footnote, the appellate court found that all of the cited cases predate the enactment of Business and Professions Code section 6149, with California law «trumping» federal law on the subject.

Bob has extensive experience in prosecuting and defending commercial cases in Federal and State courts in these cases, including numerous cases involving Articles 9 and 10 of the California Commercial Code.

Federal courts in California would also not have jurisdiction over the case since it does not involve a federal issue and does not involve a dispute in excess of $ Federal courts in California would also not have jurisdiction over the case since it does not involve a federal issue and does not involve a dispute in excess of $ federal issue and does not involve a dispute in excess of $ 75,000.

The federal district in California in the case of Binder et al v Disability Group Inc et al rendered the decision in a trial to the Court.

In this case of first impression, we convinced the trial court that California state law prohibiting forced patronage is pre-empted by federal insider trading laws.

Won a defense judgment in federal court in the Central District of California on behalf of The Home Depot in a case alleging misappropriation of confidential and trade secret information.

In August 2015, a California federal court granted Weil's motion for summary judgment on behalf of CBS Interactive Inc. (CBSI) in another landmark right of publicity case (Lightbourne) that dismissed all of plaintiff's claims.

He has argued cases before the California State Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lisa represents clients in the United States and abroad and tries cases in federal and state courts from California to Virginia.

After having had its third trial in the seemingly never ending Java API «fair use» case denied by a federal court in California, Oracle has new filed papers this week stating that it will take its case to the US Court of Appcourt in California, Oracle has new filed papers this week stating that it will take its case to the US Court of AppCourt of Appeals.

Specifically, in National Association of Wheat Growers et al. v. Zeise (Monsanto Case), a California federal district court judge preliminarily enjoined application against Monsanto of a labeling requirement imposed by a California regulatory law, Proposition 65.

Two and a half weeks ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed paperwork in federal court (California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:16 - cv -06658-JSC) requesting John Does, United States persons who, at any time during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, conducted transactions in a convertible virtual currency as defined in IRS Notice 2014 court (California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:16 - cv -06658-JSC) requesting John Does, United States persons who, at any time during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, conducted transactions in a convertible virtual currency as defined in IRS Notice 2014 Court, Case No. 3:16 - cv -06658-JSC) requesting John Does, United States persons who, at any time during the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, conducted transactions in a convertible virtual currency as defined in IRS Notice 2014 - 21.

The case will now be pushed to a federal court in California to determine precisely how much Alphabet, Inc., Google's parent company, should pay Oracle.

In August 2010, California's Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution in a federal court case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but the ruling has been stayed pending appeal by a higher court; the judge found the ban unconstitutional, ruling that «Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification.»

However, the Federal District Court ruled that it was barred by statute from hearing the case because the issues had already been decided by the California cCourt ruled that it was barred by statute from hearing the case because the issues had already been decided by the California courtcourt.