Search for: "Doe v. Superior Court"
Results 6601 - 6620
of 8,636
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2011, 12:22 pm
April 16, 2008) (“the mere fact that counsel . . . conferred with the witness during a break after the [opposition] completed his examination does not warrant sanctions”); Henry v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 11:38 am
The Supreme Court gave us a partial answer in Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 8:05 pm
The Court of Appeal in Arechiga v. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 3:03 pm
The court is not convinced.And, no, the availability of a one-drug protocol, even if superior, does not make the three-drug protocol unconstitutional. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 7:53 am
See Baloco v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 11:16 am
The Court affirmed the superior court’s action in remanding the case for trial. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 4:53 am
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has applied the Supreme 222*222 Court's standing rule to the post-1996 catch-all provision, see Debbs v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 11:22 am
But it does seem clear that the courts are approaching the issue in a uniform fashion guided by the appellate decision’s contract-based analysis. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 8:03 pm
"Principle IV "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as… [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 11:09 am
A court order of expungement does not result in the destruction of criminal records. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 1:23 pm
Superior Ct., No. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 1:23 pm
Superior Ct., No. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 3:10 pm
Marder v. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 2:23 pm
Finally, there's no easy way to search California superior court rulings, so the inclusion of a couple such cases is purely fortuitous. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 11:02 am
Molloy J. grounds her decision following the precedents set in Dunsmuir v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 10:40 am
In Mabry v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 5:32 am
It is said time and time again, in Strasbourg as well as domestic courts, that Article 8 (the right to private and family life) does not entail a general obligation for a state to respect immigrants’ choice of the country of their residence. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 5:12 am
The complaint (full text) in B.H. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 2:01 am
The complaint alleges the transfers at issue were previously approved by a number of superior courts. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:08 pm
Superior Court (filed January 13, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 658. [read post]
