Search for: "Doe v. Superior Court"
Results 7181 - 7200
of 8,637
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2010, 3:26 pm
The lawsuit is filed under 07-2-05481-2 in the King County Superior Court, Washington. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 7:26 am
BC347671) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 5:49 am
In the separate matter of Williams v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 9:44 pm
See Wallace v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 8:22 pm
Superior Court (Pearson) holds that, despite Proposition 115, section 1054.9 is valid because that proposition governs only pretrial discovery and does not prohibit postconviction discovery of the kind envisioned by section 1054.9 . [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
Click Here American Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:31 am
In Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 3:06 am
Unlike many legal commentators that have criticized the European Courts, we conclude that the approach of the Courts is justified both from a purely legal standpoint and from a Law and Economics perspective. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 7:48 pm
Superior Court, 2010 Cal. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 6:32 pm
Supreme Court in Marek v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 10:31 am
Whether the reason for the absence of an appriopriate clause in the publishing agreement is carelessness by the publisher, or superior negotiating power by the author, does not matter. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 11:09 pm
” The Arizona Court followed the lead of California in Howard v. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 2:11 pm
Supreme Court justices don’t have to observe the decree of a hierarchically superior court, just the persuasive pull of a prior Court and the need to drum up five willing voters. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 8:44 pm
AndreToday, the California Court of Appeal certified for publication its decision in Arenas v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 1:30 am
Wolff and Gottlieb v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 7:16 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit on May 07, 2001, the court found that the explanation provided by Luzerne County [NJ] for terminating county employee Rodney Smith -- violation of its drug and alcohol policy -- did not tell Smith what he did to bring about his termination in sufficient detail as to justify the district court's summarily dismissing his complaint.The court said that there "does not seem to be anything in the record… [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 3:31 pm
Stengart v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 8:10 pm
[Post by Venkat] Melkonian v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:20 pm
” This Court finds the superiority and predominance requirements of Rule 23(b) (3) are not satisfied. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 2:50 pm
The Supreme Court held that both superior (inherent jurisdiction) and statutory courts have jurisdiction to require counsel to continue, that asking counsel about the reasons for withdrawal does not violate privilege, and requiring counsel to continue does not create an improper conflict of interest or interfere with independence of the bar. [read post]
