Search for: "Grant v. Superior Court" Results 5981 - 6000 of 6,574
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2012, 5:50 am by Daniel Schwartz
  In 1996, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the deadlines were mandatory, in the case of Angelsea v. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 7:20 am
Superior Court, 231 P.2d 26, 28 (Cal. 1951) ("if there had been a physician patient relationship, the privilege would be waived. . . by [plaintiff's] bringing the action for personal injuries").The Weiss court determined that, since neither the state legislature nor the state courts had seen fit to create a physician/patient privilege, it was not the job of a federal court, sitting in diversity, to change state law. 2007 WL 2137782, at *2… [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 5:05 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Here, the court granted in part and denied in part Purina’s motion to dismiss. [read post]
24 Feb 2018, 7:41 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
For instance last year, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held the lower court (Bristol County Superior Court) in Chamberland v. [read post]
24 Feb 2018, 7:41 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
For instance last year, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held the lower court (Bristol County Superior Court) in Chamberland v. [read post]
14 Sep 2012, 9:34 am by admin
July 28, 2011) (granting preliminary injunction in part because employee acknowledged that breach of post-employment obligations would entitle employer to injunctive relief); Ayco Co., L.P. v. [read post]
31 May 2019, 9:47 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Long post, lots of stuff to cover in this opinion.MillerCoors, LLC v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 11:23 am by Neil Cahn
To begin, in its December 8, 2011 decision in Kirshy-Stallworth v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 3:09 am by Peter Mahler
Justice Kornreich’s legal analysis rejecting these arguments, and finding that the cited provisions unambiguously stripped the estate of all member rights save distributions, includes a detailed discussion of Delaware’s rules of contract construction when confronted with competing interpretations, which, she points out in a footnote, “grant courts more power [than under New York’s rules of construction] to rule on a contract’s meaning as a matter… [read post]