Search for: "Call v. Superior Court" Results 721 - 740 of 4,338
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2015, 10:30 pm by Elizabeth A. Bokermann, Esquire
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 4:54 am by Jeff Welty
Suppose a superior court judge issues a search warrant authorizing the search of a suspect’s house for drugs. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 8:35 am
The trial of a man accused of abducting, sexually assaulting, and murdering 8-year-old Victoria (Tori) Stafford will begin today in London, Ont.Michael Thomas Christopher Stephen Rafferty, 31, who pleaded not guilty to first -degree murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault causing bodily harm Feb. 29, will appear before Superior Court Justice Thomas Heeney, where the Crown is expected to open their case and call their first witness.The trial will take place before 12 jurors… [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 2:39 pm by John J. Sullivan
  Now for your entertainment . . . . a third-party-payer case called Employer Teamsters-Local Nos. 175/505 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 9:12 am by Michael Weil
Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) and expanded its applicability. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 1:37 am by Heidi Davis
The full citation of the judgment is Solidarity obo Oosthuizen v South African Police Service and Others (JS1030/17) [2023] ZALCJHB 4 (10 January 2023). [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 11:35 am by John G. Papianou
”  The Court of Appeal reasoned that because the California Supreme Court in Discover Bank v. [read post]
15 Dec 2015, 11:35 am by John G. Papianou
”  The Court of Appeal reasoned that because the California Supreme Court in Discover Bank v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 2:10 pm
Reversing the Contra Costa County Superior Court's summary judgment in favor of Metson, the Court of Appeal's analysis of the on call time distinguished the two subcategories of on call time. [read post]
9 May 2011, 3:08 pm by Meyers Nave
In reversing the decision of the Superior Court (which upheld the Commission's finding of no cause for dismissal), the Court of Appeal affirmed the principal that "[t]here are certain professions which impose . . . responsibilities and limitations on freedom of action which do not exist in regard to other callings. [read post]