Search for: "Baker v. Superior Court" Results 181 - 200 of 257
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2017, 8:05 am by Sarah Grant
Continuing with pretrial proceedings in United States v. al-Nashiri—which relates to the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole—military judge Col. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:51 am by Eric Goldman
Cf. the old Jake Baker case. * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:04 pm by Howard Knopf
This was the decision of Justice Lemieux of the Federal Court in Telewizja Polsat S.A. et al. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:00 am
  The employee claimed that the company had engaged in an unsavory business practice but the Superior Court of Middlesex disagreed, characterizing the employee's claim as simply a business disagreement. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 10:19 am by John Elwood
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County 16-466 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 8:10 am by Scott R. Anderson
Vance Spath, abated proceedings indefinitely, proclaiming, “We’re done until a superior court tells me to keep going. [read post]
18 May 2008, 1:27 am
I've written recently - and not so recently - about how the law deals with people who "annoy, alarm and harass" each other, but that post, and an earlier one, were both about adult conduct.Magistrate Marcia Linsky of the Allen County (Indiana) Superior Court sent me a link to a recent opinion from the Indiana Supreme Court that deals with a very different kind of harassment. . . harassment by a middle school student. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 12:52 pm by John Elwood
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 16-466, involving the showing necessary to establish specific jurisdiction. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 8:12 am by John Elwood
Baker, 15-457, which asks whether a federal appeals court has jurisdiction to review an order denying a class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice; McDonnell v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:01 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
ApotexThe logic of this interesting provision is along the exact lines of the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the case of Pfizer v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:02 pm
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1353 (Cal. 1996); MacDonald v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 4:08 am by David J. DePaolo
 Giving the employer's counsel unbridled access to ex parte communications with an employee's treating physicians would create numerous potential dangers, as noted in Baker [Baker v. [read post]