Search for: "People v. Superior Court"
Results 561 - 580
of 3,263
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2023, 8:00 am
In People ex rel. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 8:47 am
"The case is People v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 10:49 am
We reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the attorney fees awarded by the superior court. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 4:11 pm
At sentencing, counsel filed a motion under People v. [read post]
26 Feb 2021, 7:22 am
So far, in Property I, I have been learning that many people may be asserting a right to property, but the big question is finding out who has the superior right in a controversy. [read post]
17 Feb 2021, 2:39 pm
Federal Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2021.html Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 6:09 pm
He cited the Third District's ruling in People v. [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 3:42 am
In Texas, employers will only be deemed responsible for harm caused by their employees in limited circumstances, though, as discussed in an opinion recently issued by a Texas court in Rios Pina v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:00 am
Berry responded: "absolutely not… if he (i.e., Gentry) felt coerced, I suppose he could put a declaration before the Superior Court…but he did not. [read post]
22 May 2008, 11:08 pm
BOTELHO, Petitioners v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 5:14 pm
In January, CalBizLit posted about then scheduled argument in People v. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 4:19 pm
This Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear a death penalty appeal — People v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 1:49 pm
The California Supreme Court recently held in People v. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:57 am
July 6, 2020) People v. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 4:03 am
" The case is People v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 4:38 am
In Gates v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 2:25 pm
The landmark case, DeSanctis v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 2:25 pm
The landmark case, DeSanctis v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 6:49 am
Few people win under the statute, but this guy did.The case is Blashka v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 3:05 pm
” But, unsurprisingly, courts have read such statutes as excluding books, movies, and other publications about events (both current and past) that involved real people; the court quite rightly threw the case out.The case is Day v. [read post]
