Search for: "Grant v. Superior Court"
Results 3601 - 3620
of 6,581
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
The superior court granted the union’s petition. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 1:27 pm
Dyson, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
The Facts in Vance v. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 11:47 pm
The trial court granted UVM’s motion. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
In Do v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
According to the more recent Superior Court decision in Gillingham v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
I speculated that the California Supreme Court would grant review and hold pending its decision in Sanchez v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 11:00 am
Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1107, 68 CR 2d 883, quoting Greyhound Corp. v Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 355, 377, 15 CR 90. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 9:22 am
In Sedlock et al v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 7:00 am
Co. v Superior Court (1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1107, 68 CR 2d 883, quoting Greyhound Corp. v Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 355, 377, 15 CR 90. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 5:55 pm
On that date, an inquest was conducted and plaintiff was granted a judgment of divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Thus, this Court in Snell and Resurfice Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 10:30 am
J.R.M. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
This case could well be taken up as a "grant and hold" pending resolution of Sanchez v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 12:21 pm
Superior Court will be heading to the California Supreme Court, where a quartet of cases raising the same question are already pending. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 8:04 am
Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 487, 514-515 (discussed here) and Nelsen v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 3:22 am
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court quietly granted certiorari in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 3:59 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 12:06 pm
Last year the California Supreme Court decided Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 2:16 pm
District Court for the District of Massachusetts In Corporate Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]