Search for: "Parks v. Superior Court"
Results 101 - 120
of 948
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2014, 11:40 am
Caribbean Healthways, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 3:38 am
A claim was filed in Superior Court. [read post]
16 Oct 2009, 8:45 am
Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 10:47 am
The superior court granted class status. [read post]
4 May 2016, 10:40 pm
The superior court denied Pawn’s requested relief, finding that the variance granted to Jachimek was an area variance and not a use variance. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 10:45 am
The Pennsylvania Superior Court applied this standard in a 1981 case, Com. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of Olar v. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 8:29 am
The decision of the superior court was therefore affirmed. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 5:30 am
Corp. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 2:00 am
In the case of Cholewka v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 11:24 am
Martin v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 8:03 pm
Green v. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 5:31 am
In the case of Kistler v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:20 pm
City and County of San Francisco et al., was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court in 2009 by an employee of the city’s Department of Parks and Recreation. [read post]
10 Jul 2010, 7:07 pm
" ~ New Jersey Superior Court Judge Thomas V. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 6:00 am
Superior Court (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 30, 37; compare with Bardin v. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 10:44 am
Weeded v City of Rochester, 2018 WL 3237949 (NH 6/4/2018) [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 7:02 am
The company argued that it used business judgment in making these hiring decisions, and that it had a policy of not rehiring employees into lesser titles that would amount to demotions for the candidate.The Court of Appeals (Walker, Park and Nardini) held as follows: first, it noted that the Second Circuit stated in Byrnie v. [read post]
15 Sep 2009, 6:46 pm
While a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge granted the summary judgment motion, the California appeals court reversed the ruling. [read post]
16 Oct 2007, 7:56 am
Reporting on the Court of Appeals decision last Friday in the case, In the Matter of the Annexation Proposed by Ordinance No. 2004-11-38, et al v. [read post]
