Search for: "Roads v. Superior Court" Results 81 - 100 of 628
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Nov 2012, 5:14 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Rohrbaugh, the Superior Court held that its previous decision in the case of Pusl v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 1:41 pm
Superior Court, the court found that "The uncertain state of the law with respect to meal and rest period claims was likewise a substantial concern" which favors settlement approval. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 11:41 am
A recent decision by a Florida appellate court in the case of Lakeview Reserve Homeowners v. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:54 am by Daniel E. Cummins
"Reviewing the caselaw cited by the defense in its moving papers, the Pike County court agreed that both the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the federal courts have held that debris on the roadway that originated from, or were caused by, a vehicle to come upon the roadway did not trigger coverage.More specifically, in the case of Smith v. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 5:36 am by Patricia Salkin
The plaintiffs appealed from the commission’s decision to the Superior Court, which dismissed their appeal on the ground that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 7:55 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
While the Court declined to hear this Title VII discrimination case, Justice Alito dissented from that denial and issued an opinion that places this issue on the radar for management lawyers as a possibility for future Court review.The case is Kalamazoo County v. [read post]
18 Oct 2007, 4:47 am
Reporting on yesterday's Court of Appeals opinion in the case of City of Carmel, IN. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 10:10 am by Mark Ashton
Driscoll a precedential three judge ruling from the Superior Court, citable as 2023 Pa.Super. 95. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 7:04 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Supreme Court has quietly held that a police officer who shot at a fleeing motorist during a high-speed chase is immune from suit because the state of the law at the time of the shooting did not make it clear that he violated the Fourth Amendment in firing the shots.The case is Mullenix v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 5:00 pm
White In an unfortunate case for employers, the Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for class certification in Jaimez v. [read post]