Search for: "Davis v. Superior Court"
Results 181 - 200
of 463
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2015, 9:56 am
” In the denial of the cellphone tower data case (Davis v. [read post]
5 Sep 2015, 8:44 am
A government official in Kentucky is refusing to implement the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 8:59 am
Superior Court (Cal. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 6:22 am
Rekte was, as explained below, convicted after a trial held in the Superior Court of Riverside County. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 2:35 pm
Maynard and the concurring opinions when that case reached the Supreme Court under the name of United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 9:29 pm
When the agencies refused to turn over the data, we partnered with the ACLU of Southern California—which had filed its own ALPR-related requests—to file suit in Los Angeles Superior Court. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 10:12 am
Superior Court (Cal. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 2:18 pm
CARDELL DAVIS v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 12:29 pm
” This clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, the court held in today’s Davis v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:56 am
In re Davis, 114 N.C. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:42 am
In the latter category we place Newman v. [read post]
7 May 2015, 3:09 pm
Have a central location -- maybe as part of the superior court's web site -- where all these notices can be made. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 7:29 am
Subsequently, Green’s relations with his superiors soured. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 5:17 am
Superior court affirmed, applying PA law. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:33 am
Supp. 928, 932 (E.D.Pa. 1993), other courts have noted that “vague or highly subjective claims of product superiority including bald assertions of superiority” may constitute nothing more than non-actionable puffery. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 1:22 pm
Stennis to judgeships in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 5:05 pm
`The prime concern’ in deciding Rule 45(f) transfer motions `should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 6:40 am
`The prime concern’ in deciding Rule 45(f) transfer motions `should be avoiding burdens on local nonparties subject to subpoenas, and it should not be assumed that the issuing court is in a superior position to resolve subpoena-related motions. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 11:26 am
") AC36335 - Davis v. [read post]
