Search for: "Treat v. Superior Court"
Results 681 - 700
of 1,838
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2017, 7:24 pm
What the Superior Court purport to giveth, the Superior Court taketh away. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 2:32 am
The Superior Court of San Diego County Peculiar Risk Doctrine/Premises Liability—Application of Privette Doctrine—Exceptions—Court of Appeal, reversing trial court in split opinion, held that there were no triable issues of fact and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on Privette doctrine (which generally prohibits hirers of independent contractors from liability for injuries… Appeals Board En Banc Decision Ledezma… [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 4:15 am
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision, Hunter v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
Specifically as to inadequate warning claims the court in Anderson v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 7:12 am
[5] Williams v. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 7:12 am
[5] Williams v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
See Towers v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 5:01 am
From Mangum v. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 9:01 pm
They have done so in Fort Bend County v. [read post]
14 May 2021, 8:53 am
Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court adopted the so-called “ABC test” for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, which AB-5 subsequently codified. [read post]
27 Apr 2021, 7:30 am
“There is much talk about the confirmation process and the court being harmed as a result of the way your nomination was treated. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
McDaniel v. [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 2:46 pm
Superior Court. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 10:00 am
Superior Court (1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1107 citing Greyhound Corp v Superior Court (1961) 56 C2d 355, 376] and Fairmont Ins. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 7:20 am
In this week’s case (Dunn v. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 7:02 am
However, in Chevalier v. [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 6:00 am
Both lower courts (namely, the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Superior Court) ruled that the tax officials have the authority to send a demand letter to the Alberta branch and the Supreme Court agreed. [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 5:00 am
In other words, the exclusion upholds the all-American principle that you cannot get something (coverage) for nothing.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the erroneous decisions of the trial court and the Superior Court in this Rush case and thereby upheld the validity and enforceability of the regular use exclusion. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 9:15 am
However, as detailed in an opinion from the Massachusetts Superior Court in a case captioned Cruz v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 4:32 am
In Beard v. [read post]
