Search for: "Parks v. Superior Court" Results 401 - 420 of 823
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2013, 3:24 pm by Arthur F. Coon
” The Court distinguished and explained its own prior decision in Communities for a Better Environment v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 5:40 am
Feliciano, 2014 WL 1577768 (Superior Court of New Jersey – Appellate Division 2014). [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 5:00 am
In other words, the exclusion upholds the all-American principle that you cannot get something (coverage) for nothing.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the erroneous decisions of the trial court and the Superior Court in this Rush case and thereby upheld the validity and enforceability of the regular use exclusion. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 3:21 am
Egonu; 2007 CarswellOnt 6282; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; September 18, 2007; Docket: CRIMPJ(P) 1721/07; Subject: Criminal; Criminal law — Trial procedure — Selection of jury — Empanelling jury — Challenge for cause — Grounds. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 4:21 pm
The developer filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court and the trial court denied the petition. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 8:18 am by Maria Pracher and Shadi Mahmoudi
California Dept. of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1249, quoting Defend the Bay v. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 5:10 am by Patricia Salkin
Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing was affirmed. [read post]
8 Aug 2022, 7:40 am by John Jascob
Because the district court declined to instruct the jury as to retaliatory intent, the appeals court vacated the verdict in favor of the whistleblower and remanded for a new trial (Murray v. [read post]