Search for: "Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles"
Results 2041 - 2060
of 2,252
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm
– Staff, Taunton Daily Gazette, April 30, 2010 The owner of Northeast Demolition and Removal, and a site foreman who worked for the same company, have pled guilty in New Bedford Superior Court to charges they violated the Massachusetts Clean Air Act by failing to improperly remove asbestos from properties in Attleboro and North Attleborough. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (1987), these provisions did not confer the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in a meaningful way. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
City of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.3d 259 (1987), these provisions did not confer the ability to mitigate environmental impacts in a meaningful way. [read post]
15 Nov 2015, 1:31 pm
Prosecutor: Carteret Municipal Court, Middlesex County, NJ 2000EDITOR- NJ MUNICIPAL COURT LAW REVIEW 1993- presentMiddlesex County Bar Association 2008 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year NJ State Bar Association- 2005-2006 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year AwardNew Jersey Super Lawyers selection 2015, 2014, 13, 11, 10, 09, 08, 07, 06 "Super Lawyers" list published by Thomson Reuters and New Jersey Monthly. [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 7:33 pm
Prosecutor: Carteret Municipal Court, Middlesex County, NJ 2000EDITOR- NJ MUNICIPAL COURT LAW REVIEW 1993- presentMiddlesex County Bar Association 2008 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year NJ State Bar Association- 2005-2006 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year AwardNew Jersey Super Lawyers selection 2015, 2014, 13, 11, 10, 09, 08, 07, 06 "Super Lawyers" list published by Thomson Reuters and New Jersey Monthly. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:00 pm
We regularly appear in bankruptcy courts, district courts and superior courts. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 10:31 am
(New California) and Altus Finance (Altus), an affiliate of the French Bank Credit Lyonnais, in connection with the ELIC rehabilitation. 1992 - Gary Schulte publishes his book titled "The Fall of First Executive". 1993 - The 1991 ELIC sales agreement and the ELIC rehabilitation plan are modified and then approved by the Los Angeles Superior Court. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 6:36 am
BC410890) APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 9:23 pm
(F073634; nonpublished opinion; Stanislaus County Superior Court; 2006153.) [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:30 pm
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 363].) [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 11:57 pm
(D068185; 4 Cal.App.5th 103; San Diego County Superior Court; 37-2014-00013481- CU-TT-CTL.) [read post]
23 Aug 2015, 7:12 am
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Watson) (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 652, 658; see also San Diego Unified Port District v. [read post]
10 Oct 2022, 2:42 pm
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claims that the Breakers’ “misclassification of Coaches as independent contractors is willful and done in order to deprive the Coaches of benefits due them, and to gain an economic advantage, with the full knowledge that the law requires the Coaches to be classified as employees. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 3:30 am
Penney, filed a representative enforcement action in Los Angeles County Superior Court pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), Cal. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 4:09 pm
The Court of Appeal will have original jurisdiction over these claims. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:57 am
CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 5:01 am
Pape, that the Supreme Court held that the federal statute codified as 42 U.S.C. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 3:19 pm
Superior Court, 194 Cal. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 10:05 am
Johnson, Los Angeles County), there was at least a tentative decision concluding that § 367.3 wouldn't ordinarily call for retroactive pseudonymization; the court took the view that such requests remain subject to the standard California sealing rules, Cal. [read post]
