Search for: "Tolle v. Superior Court"
Results 241 - 260
of 264
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Feb 2013, 12:21 pm
III – THE BEHAVIOUR OF quarrelsome SYLVIO LANGEVIN 1 – The history of the applicant [18] An inventory probably incomplete litigation initiated by the applicant indicates that it has undertaken since 2001 at least 29 action in the Superior Court, at the same time he spoke 12 times in the Court of Appeal, as well as 4 times in the Supreme Court of Canada. [19] Among these disputes, Mr. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 8:21 am
Supreme Court cases – Burlington Industries v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 5:44 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 12:51 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
3 May 2020, 7:19 am
Superior Ct. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 2:17 pm
The Court held that the superior court does not have discretion in sentencing when a firearm restriction is statutorily mandated and the legislature included no discretion to waive or limit the firearm restriction, and ordered the provision stricken from the judgment and sentence. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 8:52 am
However, Russell Alexander posted some comments yesterday on the recent decision in Kirby v Kirby that has given me pause for thought. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 1:24 pm
The new law codifies and expands on a 2018 California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 8:51 am
Kelly v. [read post]
31 Aug 2024, 9:05 am
United StatesMoody v. [read post]
30 Oct 2022, 10:01 am
The case raises an interesting question of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts by employees in the course of employment. [read post]
5 Aug 2024, 10:46 am
Cases 493, to provide authority for tolling the 60-day period under Labor Code § 5909. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 12:50 pm
Settlement of Viacom v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm
Shareholders were represented by co-lead counsel firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. 2.) [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 1:21 pm
Statements implying superiority where the differences in adverse reactions are not clinically meaningful would be misleading. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am
See, e.g., Jack Michael Beermann, Major Questions, Delegation, Chevron and the Anti-Innovation Supreme Court at 8 (March 9, 2023) (“This article also illustrates how the Court is doing a poor job providing clear instructions to lower courts and other government entities on how and in some cases even whether to apply its doctrines. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
”[24] The court continued by observing that: [H]ere, the Provision is used by an agency of the federal government to shield itself from public view. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:45 am
In McNally v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm
”[21] The Panel explains that this formulation is desirable because it will provide the courts and litigants with notice of appropriate uses of the legislation, and by doing so, it will deter litigation that does not fall within the appropriate uses.[22] As well, a purpose clause will help litigants differentiate between SLAPPs and non-SLAPPs, the latter of which is subject to the limited remedies for traditional civil actions.[23] An effective purpose clause plays the crucial roles… [read post]
