Search for: "LITTLE v. SUPERIOR COURT"
Results 341 - 360
of 2,091
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2020, 11:03 pm
(Republican and Democratic agencies agree on little but non-reviewability). [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 10:46 am
" Christopher v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 2:11 pm
However, it should be noted that that the Board’s “correctness” niche carved out by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) pre-Vavilov wherein some issues arise both in tariff hearings and in infringement proceedings in the superior Courts may one day now be revisited as to whether this is still “good law”. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm
[v] Two examples of these strategic practices emerged following the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the Trulia case[vi] and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Cyan case. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 3:45 pm
Here’s the judgment of the FCA: York University v. [read post]
31 May 2020, 9:56 am
Issue(s): “In the case before us, the district court applied Alexander [v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 9:35 am
From a parenting perspective, while the case of Douglas v Douglas, 2020 ONSC 2160 (which was heard on March 25, 2020, not long after the Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Justice regular operations were initially suspended as a result of COVID-19) seemed to indicate that matters where one parent has reduced the other’s parenting time as a result of COVID-19 would not be considered urgent unless there was an existing court order, the… [read post]
24 May 2020, 6:27 pm
Patrick Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice take the position of Interim Dean. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
An Australian law firm’s “Tips and tricks for online hearings” refers to a ruling by the Federal Court of Australia that a case with 50 witnesses that was scheduled for six weeks would proceed virtually, despite the objection of one of the parties (Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited (Adjournment)). [read post]
11 May 2020, 1:57 pm
Not much from the California appellate courts today; one published decision each from the Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit.Instead of talking about either of those two (somewhat pedestrian) opinions, I thought I'd briefly mention this opinion from the Appellate Division of the Superior Court instead. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
6 May 2020, 8:28 am
Superior Ct.). [read post]
5 May 2020, 7:05 am
MDS Inc. v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
The Court said that §80 of the Civil Service Law "reflects a legislative imperative" that the City was powerless to bargain away.As the Court of Appeals said in County of Chautauqua v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 10:40 am
According to the superior court, “[t]he factual framework in this case is nebulous and punctuated by many contradictions. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
Greenhill v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 3:55 pm
Whether these claims will stand up on appeal or not the Superior Court had little difficulty finding that a claim was stated. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 1:11 pm
” (Citing Sierra Club v. [read post]
