Search for: "LITTLE v. SUPERIOR COURT"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 1,858
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2010, 7:26 am
Dorman Products, Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 10:55 am
(The concrete question that divides them is whether Roe v. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 6:00 am
Sherman v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 9:29 am
Palestinian Authority and in Ontario Superior Court in Bouzari v. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 10:02 am
"); R.A.V. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 5:37 am
On another front, yesterday the Superior Court (in Barrick v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
In particular, the Second Circuit in SEC v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 5:00 am
The majority opinion drew a sharp dissent, and it will either be appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, or go back to the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court for further proceedings (or, of course, it may be settled).Is this type of case just an "informed consent" case: i.e., if the "informed consent" had been broader, there would be no viable claims? [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 7:52 pm
The superior court agreed with and fully upheld the lower court’s decision. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 7:52 pm
The superior court agreed with and fully upheld the lower court’s decision. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 9:00 pm
Expedia, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court West District, Case No. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 4:08 pm
In the decision of Brinker Restaurant v. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 4:30 am
(Michigan v. [read post]
16 May 2008, 12:43 pm
Is it likely the Supreme Court - or the Superior Court in San Francisco, to which this case should be returning for entry of a final order - would grant a stay? [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 7:18 am
Yes, says the Superior Court. [read post]
31 May 2011, 11:01 am
Four days ago, in Hill v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 12:46 pm
Superior Forwarding, Inc., 762 F.2d 695, 697 (8th Cir. 1985)). [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:32 am
Over a full-throated dissent by Judge Tjoflat (tweaking the majority for overturning “a reasoned State court decision . . . on little more than a hunch”), the court concluded that counsel’s failure to conduct a more thorough background investigation of DeBruce was constitutionally deficient, and that the state court’s contrary conclusion was objectively unreasonable. [read post]
