Search for: "Superior Court v. Civil Service Commission"
Results 81 - 100
of 380
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
The district court dismissed these claims stating that the alleged taking had not sought compensation in the earlier state court proceedings as required by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
Hawaii law expressly authorized the Commission to impose this condition. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 11:23 am
Dunkins (EFF) New Federal Court Rulings Find Geofence Warrants Unconstitutional (EFF) EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment (Ongoing case of People v Dawes in SF Superior Court re geofence warrants) People v. [read post]
12 Nov 2020, 1:25 pm
Brand X Internet Services Decision (Wikipedia) Cable Wins Internet-Access Ruling (New York Times) New Neutrality Takes a Wild Ride: 2014 in Review (EFF) DC Circuit Court’s Decision in Verizon v FCC An Attack on Net Neutrality Is an Attack on Free Speech (EFF) D.C. [read post]
8 Nov 2020, 4:06 pm
Last Week in the Courts As already mentioned, Nicol J handed down judgment in the case of Depp v NGN [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB)) on 2 November 2020. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Further, the defendants argued that the penalty could be avoided under section 1671 of the Civil Code. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 8:43 am
In 1961, the Supreme Court made clear in Monroe v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105; Health First v. [read post]
28 Sep 2020, 3:00 am
Further, the defendants argued that the penalty could be avoided under section 1671 of the Civil Code. [read post]
20 Sep 2020, 7:59 pm
” The CLPA was examined by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice earlier this year in Leroux v. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
Hawaii law expressly authorized the Commission to impose this condition. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
24 Jul 2020, 6:01 am
" But the Connecticut Supreme Court in Cotto v. [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
8 Jul 2020, 2:06 pm
Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 262, 271.) [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
24 Jun 2020, 9:48 am
Buzz Photo v. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 7:11 am
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Philippines, in Disini v. [read post]
10 May 2020, 7:48 pm
The Ontario Court of Appeal also reviewed these provisions in R. v. [read post]
