Search for: "Jones v. Superior Court" Results 281 - 300 of 471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2017, 11:06 am by Eric Goldman
See, e.g., Jones v. thedirty (“An adoption or ratification theory, however, is not only inconsistent with the material contribution standard of “development” but also abuses the concept of responsibility. [read post]
31 Jul 2010, 5:27 am by Ray Mullman
 Superior Court Judge Abraham Penn Jones concluded that the contract was signed under duress as both she and her mother were suffering serious health problems and her 23-year-old daughter had only months earlier suffered partial paralysis in a rollerblading accident. [read post]
Supp. 2d 367, 374 (D.N.J. 2010). 41037-1-II / 41047-8-II FACTS The State charged Roden in two separate cause numbers with attempted possession of heroin (superior court cause no. 09-1-01153-0) and with possession of heroin (superior court cause no. 10-1-00091-4). [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:17 pm by Dan Bushell
For one, state supreme courts, led by the California Supreme Court in Discover Bank v. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:19 pm by Chukwuma Okoli
Further, the Californian Superior Court ordered the respondent to turn over the shares to the appellants. [read post]
12 May 2015, 7:35 am
  Here goes:*************************** Certification was denied in a recent proposed multiple-model product liability class action before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in O'Brien v Bard Canada Inc.Class actions are more common in Canada than the US, due in large part to the low bar for certification of an action as a class proceeding in Canada. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
Erica Lafferty & Ors v Alex Jones, Connecticut Superior Court, UWY-CV18-6046436-S  In October a Connecticut jury awarded $965m compensatory damages to the families of Sandy Hook victims following statements made by Jones that the shootings were a hoax as part of a plot to seize American guns. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 12:27 pm by Shea Denning
In Pacheco, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania determined that when “prosecutors sought and obtained real-time information about Pacheco’s location by pinging his cell phone, they conducted a ‘search’ under the federal and state constitutions. [read post]