Search for: "Doe v. Superior Court" Results 7161 - 7180 of 8,637
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2010, 1:46 pm by Christopher Simon
The Superior Court, Floyd County, Walther, J., granted summary judgment to restaurant. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 2:01 am by Marie Louise
MP3tunes LLC (IP Whiteboard)   US Copyright – Lawsuits and strategic steps Boy Racer – P2P lawyer: IP address not enough, let me search all PCs in the house – Boy Racer v Doe (ArsTechnica) Cinetel Films – Anti-piracy lawyers retreat, drop another mass bittorrent lawsuit (TorrentFreak) On the Cheap – Lawyer refuses to tell court how profitable BitTorrent settlements are (TorrentFreak) (TorrentFreak)   [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 1:19 pm by Garry J. Wise, Wise Law Office, Toronto
In most instances, however, the Court does appear to view it as a mitigating option that has good potential to reduce some of the harm of geographical separation between a parent and children.Nonetheless, the law regarding child mobility continues to be governed by the "best interests test" set out by the pre-Skype Supreme Court of Canada, in its 1996 ruling in Gordon v. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 7:57 pm
Superior Court -- California's Second District Court of Appeal grapples with hard facts that made bad law. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2008 Dutil v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
These are analogous powers that the English Superior Courts had under the prerogative writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus and quo-warranto. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 8:54 am by Ryan Scoville
To resolve this issue, the district court would have to apply California’s choice of law rules, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Klaxon Co. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2010, 11:40 pm by Mike
 Judge Susan Illston found that there was "some evidence of dangerousness" in the BPH decision: There was sufficient evidence for the state superior court to uphold the BPH's decision. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 11:43 am by Richard Renner
There, the Court held that nuclear whistleblowers were not protected when they raised safety concerns to their superiors. [read post]