Search for: "Cross v. Superior Court"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,408
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2016, 9:01 pm
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 6:19 am
Kazakhstan also commenced an action against the unnamed Does in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking injunctive relief and damages.On March 4, 2015, Kazakhstan initiated this limited action in King County Superior Court. [read post]
13 Mar 2016, 2:37 pm
Superior Court (Ahmed) (Charbonnet). [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:18 pm
” Accordingly, “the superior court erred in determining an EIR was required to study the psychological and social impact [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:42 am
Both Hoard and Beveridge filed cross-motions for attorney fees and expenses seeking, respectively, fees and expenses of $431,411.25 and $400,974.90. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
The court also noted that it is well-settled law of this Commonwealth since 1927, under the case of Critzer v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 2:22 pm
Brisson Stone LLC v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 1:04 pm
After a 14-day evidentiary hearing, a superior court judge ruled against the petitioner, and the California Supreme Court affirmed. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 8:31 am
Pattridge v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
In Garcetti v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 9:59 pm
Ahmed (Minor) v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 11:27 am
Karen Partanen v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 11:27 am
Karen Partanen v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 11:27 am
Karen Partanen v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
The rules for summary trial (see Rule 216) also allow the Court to issue orders requiring experts or witnesses to be cross-examined live at the hearing. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 12:09 pm
While the Adobe v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 9:47 am
In Khalsa v. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 1:41 pm
This post examines an opinion from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 9:26 am
For that reason, we need clear rules so that this ability is only used where it is reasonable to do so, in accord with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This morning, the Ontario Superior Court released its important decision in R. v. [read post]
