Search for: "Murphy v. Superior Court"
Results 181 - 200
of 220
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
Murphy v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:30 am
Although the legal premise for such cases arose in the 1980s (see, for example State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] I.R. 362 and Murphy v DPP [1989] I.L.R.M. 71) real interest in the “missing evidence” concept as a method to seek to force the prohibition of an impending trial did not gather pace until the early 2000s. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 5:10 pm
Superior Court Judge Joel Wohlfeil said there is no evidence Elliott intended to deceive voters when her ad quoted an outdated court ruling that contained harsh criticisms of Briggs that appellate judges later softened. [read post]
30 May 2014, 12:40 pm
Korematsu v. [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 8:23 pm
Erin Murphy, counsel in Barnett v. [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 5:47 am
It also rejected Laiwala’s claim that the Court of Appeals earlier decision in Chrisman v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
Most cases are, by default, in the Superior Court. [read post]
6 May 2012, 6:51 am
Murphy, 296 Or. 610, 678 P.2d 1210, 1218 (1984) (Oregon abolishes the fireman’s rule at common law). [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am
The Supreme Court of Canada finally upped Robinson’s total award from the $2.7 million figure set by the Quebec Court of Appeal, but without restoring it fully to the $5.2 million awarded by Superior Court Judge Claude Auclair in 2009. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 2:19 pm
The Supreme Court long ago recognized the problem, in a portion of Argersinger v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 8:21 am
Cal. 2011) (AT&T Mobility followed); Murphy v. [read post]
27 Sep 2024, 10:21 am
Superior Ct. [read post]
8 Nov 2024, 9:28 am
Susan V. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 2:25 pm
California’s notorious section 16600 may even reach non-parties to a contract, according to a California Superior Court. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
In Murphy v. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 8:01 pm
For example, in Murphy v U.S. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am
Murphy Rosen & Meylan, Robert L. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:36 am
Murphy Rosen & Meylan, Robert L. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 4:36 pm
Before Real Party was able to complete a response to this issue, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye interrupted, inquiring as to the impact of the Court’s previous decision in Industrial Welfare Com. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Murphy, No. 06-2292 The text of the Massachusetts SDP statute, as interpreted by state courts, does not on its face violate the due process protections heretofore afforded sexually dangerous persons subject to civil commitment. [read post]
