Search for: "State v. So "
Results 6661 - 6680
of 116,393
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Mar 2011, 11:07 am
You get more 5-4 decisions in the United States Supreme Court than 4-3 decisions in the California Supreme Court. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 4:03 am
The Court of Appeal disagreed, affirming in an unpublished opinion.Years later, the state Supreme Court decided People v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 8:52 am
Strobel and State Farm, 2009 WL 3793590 (Butler Co., Nov. 5, 2009) Grove v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 5:34 am
State v. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 3:11 pm
Cambridge Literary v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 10:28 am
Wawrzynski v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 9:58 am
If a defendant fails to do so, the action must be remanded back to state court. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 5:15 pm
But in so doing, they often blame the plaintiffs for the state of affairs. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 12:36 pm
Case citation: The Ohio State University v. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 6:05 am
Letelier v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 9:53 am
The Seventh Circuit in EEOC v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 11:00 am
Circuit turned to this question, in the case of Hentif v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 9:00 pm
State, 785 So.2d 672, 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 5:19 pm
This is a Louisiana state court case, so the cert. petition could test the extent to which the Justices believe that any of the principles (or, more likely, the leanings) announced in Wal-Mart may impact state-court class-action proceedings. [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 4:30 am
On Monday, I talked about State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 1:15 pm
State v. [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 3:30 pm
A. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 1:53 pm
So, um, just for the lack of definition of that state law was really the key. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 4:55 am
The issue in Qayyum Ansari v New India Assurance Limited [2008] EWHC 243 was whether, when a sprinkler system had been turned off prior to a fire, there had been a material change in cover in the facts stated in a proposal form so as to bring into effect a termination of cover. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
Sebelius (NFIB), the Supreme Court held (7-2) that the Affordable Care Act's medicaid expansion unconsitutionally coerced the states to accept the expansion and thus offended the Constitution's so-called Spending Clause. [read post]
