Search for: "California v. Super. Ct."
Results 281 - 300
of 499
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2014, 12:32 pm
So held a California trial court in Sessoms v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 1:03 pm
Ct. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:27 pm
Ct. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:27 pm
Ct. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:05 am
Super. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 5:49 am
The Regents of the University of California (Super. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:53 am
Ct. 2466 (2013). [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:57 am
Super. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 7:01 am
Ct. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 10:16 am
California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), makes clear. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 11:23 am
Super. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 9:48 am
Ct. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:10 am
Super. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:25 am
Ct. at 2477. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:23 pm
Particularly when, as here, we're otherwise processing the case super quickly. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 3:26 pm
That's why we have courts.Admittedly, our courts are super backlogged. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 4:05 am
City of Pismo Beach, (CA Super. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 3:39 pm
Ct. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Ct. 2466 (2013). [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 1:54 pm
So the malicious prosecution suit gets dismissed.That's indeed what I think California precedent holds.But let me nonetheless offer a critique of this position.As an outsider, I think there are two serious problems with this doctrine. [read post]