Search for: "LITTLE v. SUPERIOR COURT" Results 741 - 760 of 1,858
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2020, 12:24 am by Peter Mahler
The Appellate Division, Second Department’s opinion last week in PFT Technology, LLC v Wieser, 2020 NY Slip Op 01942 [2d Dept Mar. 18, 2020], is one of those. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 5:46 am by Mark Ashton
Mariani 504 EDA 2023 https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2024/504-wda-2023.html [read post]
5 May 2010, 8:43 am by Green Building Law Brief
West Chelsea Development Partners LLC, Index No. 16104615/10 in the Superior Court for New York County, can be found here; the LEED-related allegations are on pages 19 and 20. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 9:15 pm by cdw
” [via LexisOne]  “In a capital habeas matter, the denial of petitioner’s motion for postconviction relief is affirmed in part, but the matter is remanded where: 1) the superior court did not address the interest of justice exception, as defined in Weedon v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 5:30 pm by Carley Roberts and Mike Le
”17 New JerseyThe New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division’s unpublished decision in Paz v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 7:48 pm by cdw
Superior Court,  2010 Cal. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 9:40 am by Holman
” A few days later, on November 7, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Juno v. [read post]
22 Apr 2018, 5:46 pm by Richard Primus
Last spring, I published a short essay about the relationship between the entry-ban litigation and Korematsu v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 6:43 am
 A little later, two detectives – Slaughter and Cardone – interrogated Patino. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 8:13 am by Christina Sonsire
  In August, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court handed down a ruling in Pringle v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:58 am
The ruling ultimately will have little traction: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act included whistleblower provisions that beefed up the FCA clause at issue. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 4:37 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morrison v National Australia Bank, the lower courts have worked out a host of issues about how Morrison applies in a variety of circumstances. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 12:00 pm by Jason M. Halper
The Court observed that the deal represented a negative premium (referred to by Comverge’s largest stockholder as a “takeunder”), and the board had rejected as too low an offer of $2.25/share offer from HIG (28% higher than the merger value) a little over a month earlier. [read post]