Search for: "Grant v. Superior Court"
Results 4441 - 4460
of 6,584
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2011, 11:57 am
In the short order, the Court granted review, vacated the Oregon opinion denying the manufacturer's challenge to jurisdiction, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of J. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 7:10 am
Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana has granted a Motion to Remand to the Marion County Superior Court in a case that had been removed to federal court due to Lanham Act trademark infringement claims in the original complaint. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:00 pm
Concluding that the statutes required the victim be alive at the time of the accident, the Indiana County Court of Common Pleas granted Wisneski’s petition, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:33 am
In Feder v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:19 am
In Feder v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 10:45 pm
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 14-10-00698-CV - 10/11/11 Robert Bittinger v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 12:10 pm
A Superior Court judge entered a preliminary injunction stopping the eviction, and that order was the subject of the SJC’s review. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 2:30 pm
Class action litigation was the superior method for adjudicating the claims, according to the court. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
The Sacramento Superior Court granted the motion finding plaintiff failed to submit sufficient facts to establish either cause action. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued an interesting decision in Wang v. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 4:00 am
Madam Justice Quinlan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice began her Reasons for Judgment in a recent drainage case in this way: "Issues between neighbours can sometimes be unpleasant. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Supreme Court decided Gray v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 1:33 pm
The case of EEOC v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:47 am
Ambrose Harris (Procurator Fiscal), HM Advocate v G : HM Advocate v M [2011] UKSC 43 (6 October 2011) – read judgment Reliance on evidence that emerged from questioning a person without access to a lawyer did not invariably breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm
”[21] The Panel explains that this formulation is desirable because it will provide the courts and litigants with notice of appropriate uses of the legislation, and by doing so, it will deter litigation that does not fall within the appropriate uses.[22] As well, a purpose clause will help litigants differentiate between SLAPPs and non-SLAPPs, the latter of which is subject to the limited remedies for traditional civil actions.[23] An effective purpose clause plays the crucial roles… [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 2:28 pm
Just two months later, on October 22, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision in Brinker. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 1:31 pm
Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 2005). [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
[4] Discussion of the Superior Court ruling can be found here [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:47 am
[4] Discussion of the Superior Court ruling can be found here [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 4:49 pm
Superior Court (Hohnbaum) to take place on November 8, 2011. [read post]
