How have courts interpreted the argument that a school can be sued on the grounds that it would be a violation of state law?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Duggal v. Future Telcom, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (Cal. App. 2000):
7. To the extent appellants purport to raise any other grounds in support of this argument, we deem them waived. (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700.)
7. To the extent appellants purport to raise any other grounds in support of this argument, we deem them waived. (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
In a sexual assault case, in what circumstances would the jury have considered a defense counsel's closing argument that the prosecutor's rebuttal to the closing argument had the trial court sustained an objection? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the interpretation of a federal agency's interpretation of the California Civil Code? (California, United States of America)
Is section 1001.36 of the California Criminal Code a "stressed interpretation" of the law and, if so, would it be impertinent for the court to place a strained interpretation upon the statute? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Can a defense interpreter only interpret words of the witness interpreter at trial? (California, United States of America)
Does the majority of the California Supreme Court have found a Fifth Amendment violation even when the state has not technically "compelled" a defendant to produce their testimonial disclosures? (California, United States of America)
Does the rule against interpreting statutory language "in a manner that would render some part of the statute surplusage" support a different interpretation? (California, United States of America)
