Search for: "4th Judicial District Court" Results 541 - 560 of 1,931
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2018, 5:55 am by Joel R. Brandes
Miller, 240 F.3d 392, 402 (4th Cir. 2001) (“In fact, the courts retain the discretion to order return even if one of the exceptions is proven. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 11:44 am
  So much for judicial modesty. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 12:24 pm by Arthur F. Coon
In a published opinion filed November 13, 2023, disposing of consolidated appeals, the Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed judgments denying writ petitions that sought to invalidate a Ventura County ordinance. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 3:15 pm by Arthur F. Coon
The Superior Court of Tuolumne County (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Real Parties In Interest (2014) ___ Cal.4th ___, Case No. [read post]
17 May 2008, 5:30 pm
GUADALUPE-BLANCO RIVER AUTHORITY; from Guadalupe County; 4th district (04-05-00943-CV, 211 S.W.3d 351, 06-21-06) The Court affirms in part and reverses in part the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 6:00 am
Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court for an "evidentiary hearing" at which the district court would figure out how much DHHS should get. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 10:17 am by Richard D. Shane
” Apparently not, so ruled Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal last week in Domville v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 2:31 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  “The Book” is the most widely used and judicially recognized real estate treatise in California and is cited by practicing attorneys and courts throughout the state. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 8:52 am by Rebecca Tushnet
., --- F.4th ----, 2022 WL 17726673, No. 22-15209 (9th Cir. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 5:19 pm by David Kopel
The case was remanded to the district court, which had applied the wrong standard, namely a weak version of intermediate scrutiny. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 1:06 pm by Stephen Wm. Smith
At least 19 district court decisions[6] accepted the argument, holding that installation and monitoring of the NIT software was authorized by the tracking warrant provisions of Rule 41(b)(4) and 18 U.S.C. 3117. [read post]