Search for: "Doe v. Superior Court"
Results 4181 - 4200
of 8,635
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2014, 9:05 am
As we see from a recent case, Hall et al. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 3:00 am
After the defendant removed the action from Alameda County Superior Court to the District Court, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court granting the plaintiff’s motion to remand. [read post]
5 Oct 2014, 5:59 pm
Upton v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 1:15 pm
In CDC Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
” The district court held that the FAAAA does not preempt section 148B(a)(2). [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 8:32 am
A 2007 decision from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Comm. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 4:03 pm
Superior Court established a significant precedent regarding medical products liability, and products liability generally. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 11:13 am
For instance, the FTC cites 1975’s Goldfarb v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 8:13 am
In Tarrant Bell Property, LLC v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 5:33 am
In Lawrence v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 10:38 am
Jones appealed the Superior Court’s ruling to the Ontario Court of Appeal only on the ground that Ontario law does not recognize the tort of invasion of privacy. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court order. [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 2:02 pm
Cooper Surgical, Inc., California Superior Court for San Diego County, JCCP-2754-00243, and Santa Clara County, No. 922061 (Dec. 6, 1994). [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 4:54 pm
A court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the attempt of the Legislature and is not free to legislate. in Pajak v Pajak, wherein the Court of Appeals held that the right to a divorce is statutorily created and since section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law did not provide for a defense to an action for divorce except upon the grounds of adultery, no defense could be offered to prevent plaintiff's claims of a right to a divorce on the ground of… [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 8:18 am
The statutory definition of consumer report does not require use for an employment purpose by Dish, the court explained; rather, the FCRA requires that the information be collected or used for employment purposes without specifying who is using or collecting the information. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 4:55 pm
Citing People v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 4:54 am
Lilly v. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 8:13 am
the Superior Court, the property was in Big Bear. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 7:00 am
Likewise, the court ruled that the factual allegations in the complaint were sufficient to survive a pre-certification motion to dismiss in regard to the other Rule 23(a) class action requirements of numerosity, typicality, and superiority. [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 2:41 pm
Shaddy v. [read post]
