Search for: "List of ORDERS ON PETITIONS FOR FURTHER REVIEW FILED September 21, 2004"
Results 1 - 20
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2013, 6:00 am
PIMS contains data on initial petition approvals and on L blanket petitions that were approved in 2004 or later. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 9:27 am
The child was 13 years old, and had no adjudicated father and no father listed on his birth certificate. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 12:56 am
News of the settlement first became public on September 14, 2004, but the company’s share price did not actually decline until September 21, 2004, when a securities analyst issued a report expressing concern about the company's possible exposure to future regulatory issues. ? [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 6:00 am
The trial court subsequently entered an order which denied Las Palmas’ petition, set aside the arbitration award and ordered that the dispute be reheard by a different arbitrator. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
On July 22, 2011, Petitioners filed a timely petition for review of the DEA action. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am
On July 22, 2011, Petitioners filed a timely petition for review of the DEA action. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 9:25 am
James case (No. 6 below), the California Supreme Court ordered republished the decision of the Fourth Appellate District [167 Cal.App.4th 800, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 (2008)], awarding the property to the plaintiff Diocese of San Diego; the defendants did not seek further review)6-8. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
An administrative judge upheld the decision, stating that the decision would become final on June 21, 2004, unless a petition for review was filed. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 1:22 am
On August 21, 2007, (after thetime for filing his witness list had passed), Lightbourne addedtwo (2) additional individuals to that witness list. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
They petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review that decision. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 1:44 pm
James case (No. 6 below), the California Supreme Court ordered republished the decision of the Fourth Appellate District [167 Cal.App.4th 800, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 (2008)], awarding the property to the plaintiff Diocese of San Diego; the defendants did not seek further review)6-8. [read post]
19 May 2015, 5:52 pm
DSS filed its verified answer to the petition on September 14, 2006, after the court issued Dec. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 7:47 am
Companion animals are not listed, nor provided in, the text of the Automatic Orders. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
This year-end update provides an overview of the major developments in federal and state securities litigation since our last update in September 2022: The Supreme Court is set to hear a blockbuster case that will shape whether and how shareholders can establish standing to bring claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act when a company sells its shares in a direct listing. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 2:33 pm
Slip Op. 07335) the parties were married in 2004. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:29 pm
On September 4, 2015, One Tech filed an opposed motion to stay [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 8:35 am
I hope that further proceedings in the case fix the court’s pretty obvious error–but that fix won’t come from the California Supreme Court, which unfortunately denied the petition for review. 9) Musk destroys Twitter. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 2:12 pm
Does filing a mandamus petition automatically stay the trial court order at issue? [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 2:12 pm
Does filing a mandamus petition automatically stay the trial court order at issue? [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 12:59 pm
The Court, in its first round of grants of review this Term on September 30, accepted both the government’s and the Tamils’ petitions, and consolidated them for briefing and oral argument. [read post]
