Search for: "Johnson v. Superior Court" Results 601 - 620 of 639
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Apr 2008, 4:50 am
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana; James Johnson of Evansville, IN and Christine Stach of Fort Wayne, IN. 9:45:AM - In the Matter of J.C.C. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 7:41 am
The Court of Appeals decision March 14th in the case of Cesar De La Rosa v. [read post]
2 Mar 2008, 5:32 pm
* Two more breathy articles about the economics of domaining from the New York Times and Network World. 47 USC 230 * Johnson v. [read post]
3 Feb 2008, 1:58 pm
The case went before a Los Angeles Superior Court jury consisting of 5 men (one African-American) and 7 women. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 10:56 am
("Father") appeal the involuntary termination of their parental rights to their respective children in Marion Superior Court. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 12:27 pm
All five justices agreed to uphold Johnson Superior Court's handling of Overstreet's case, dismissing other arguments including that Overstreet had had ineffective counsel. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 12:54 am
Court Panel Throws Out Verdict Against Stock Exchange The Legal Intelligencer The Philadelphia Stock Exchange cannot be held liable for injuries a former trader sustained in an incident with a competitor on PHLX's trading floor because the plaintiff's case is pre-empted by federal securities law, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 11:30 am
In an unusual decision released October 5, 2007, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relied on its parens patriae power to assume jurisdiction over two children who habitually resided with their father in Saudi Arabia at the time of the hearing.In Johnson v. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 1:45 pm
An amount that, the landlord notes, is 131 times higher than the LA Superior Court's guidelines for fee awards in contract cases. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 4:40 pm
And Justice Johnson helpfully writes a persuasive concurrence that calls upon the Legislature to modify CCP 1985.3 so as to provide means through it may be effective enforced.But, after this opinion, there's absolutely no reason why a subpoenaed party should protect the consumer or other records of a party. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:02 pm
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1353 (Cal. 1996); MacDonald v. [read post]