Search for: "Call v. Superior Court"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 4,338
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2021, 1:44 pm
Superior Ct. by the California Supreme Court, formalizing the so-called “ABC Test” of ascertaining when a person is an employee or an independent contractor. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 8:02 am
Sometimes Florida sexual abuse claims against third-parties – employers in particular – are rooted in a legal doctrine called respondeat superior. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 11:58 am
The Supreme Judicial Court made clear in Commonwealth v. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:56 pm
To remove a case on a “color of office” argument, the removing party bears the burden of establishing what’s called the three-part “Mesa test,” from the Supreme Court case by that name,[5] The three-part test requires the defendant to show they: were an “officer, or any person acting under that officer, of the United States” are facing criminal charges “for or relating to any act under color of such office”; and have raised or… [read post]
10 Aug 2008, 11:42 pm
In the case of Leek v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 10:44 am
Anthony v. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 9:21 am
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bailey v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 3:18 am
Those were the facts in Smith v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 8:15 am
In Chambers v. [read post]
10 Mar 2012, 4:31 pm
Rippy v. [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 10:40 am
In Stevenson v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:20 pm
The titillating tale unfolds in the Reasons for Judgment from the Quebec Superior Court in A. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2023, 12:53 pm
Superior Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S. 255, 137 S. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 10:42 am
The court in the 1936 case United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 6:00 am
The superior court erred in reversing a DMV civil revocation of a driver’s license in a case where the appellee refused to consent to a chemical analysis after being charged with DWI. [read post]
14 May 2009, 2:05 pm
Copies of the opinions can be secured from the Law Weekly by calling 1-800-276-PICS and providing the PICS numbers indicated.Minto v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
Gradeless v. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 7:37 pm
In regards to the G.L. 231, § 59H (the so-called “anti-SLAPP” statute) claim, the Van Dams stated that this action is groundless, “and a mere pretext to intimidate and harass the Van Dams as the result of the Norfolk Superior Court Matter. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 8:24 pm
Because it involves a company called the "Mega Life and Health Insurance Company". [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:39 am
This post examines a recent opinion from the Superior Courtof New Jersey – Appellate Division: Roberts v. [read post]
