Search for: "Waters v. Superior Court"
Results 321 - 340
of 891
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2017, 4:00 am
See Watson v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:20 pm
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reached a rather controversial opinion last month in the case of Pizzino v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:20 pm
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reached a rather controversial opinion last month in the case of Pizzino v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 10:37 am
Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 6:47 am
In Rader v. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 3:00 am
Hood v. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 10:18 am
Superior Recharge Sys. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
The Highway 68 Coalition v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 12:38 pm
The Highway 68 Coalition v. [read post]
25 Aug 2017, 8:18 am
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and securities-fraud jurisprudence after the last term. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 10:53 am
A D.C. federal district court judge ruled yesterday in United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 7:42 am
This post examines a recent decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 12:55 pm
In the latest twist in a long-standing saga, the Superior Court of Justice has ruled partially in favour of a landowner upon whose property in Kawartha Lakes an oil spill. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 11:56 am
PC 99-5226, Rhode Island Superior Court, Providence (Feb. 26, 2007) (discussing Rosner and Markowitz’s testimony on post-verdict motions); Altria Group, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 9:24 am
(E.g., Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 6:44 pm
The superior court ruled in favor of the Department. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 7:44 am
In finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact, the court relied on Barry v. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 3:00 am
Sovanarra Nop v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 6:17 am
Additional Resources: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 4:40 pm
The court held that under the standard of review the trial court was supposed to apply, the city council would be presumed to have a superior opportunity to know and consider the varied and conflicting interests involved in this matter, to balance the burdens and benefits, and to consider the general welfare of the area involved. [read post]
