Search for: "Grant v. Superior Court" Results 1221 - 1240 of 6,580
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Mar 2023, 10:40 am
Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 549, 552.Doing so, we recognize that the issue is currently before our Supreme Court; that if appellants are so inclined, they can seek review of our decision in that court; and that the ultimate holding in that court may differ from that we make here, perhaps resurrecting appellants’ appeal. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 5:00 am
Aug. 17, 2022 Padilla, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirm the trial court's previous Order granting a Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in a legal malpractice claim. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 8:47 am by Matt Cooper
Jackson (election contest): https://electioncases.osu.edu/case/ward-v-jackson/ From the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge’s decision: “The Court finds no misconduct, no fraud, and no effect on the outcome of the election. [read post]
10 Apr 2023, 3:01 pm
Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 892 [“the California Constitution amply established the existence of a fundamental public policy”]; see Green v. [read post]
19 Dec 2019, 8:13 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Galindo 10-17-19 Order Granting Motion for Declaratory Relief – Galindo v Adams Adams v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 8:05 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Tort Talkers may recall that, on November 19, 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted the Plaintiff’s Petition for Re-argument and withdrew its opinion in Barrick v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 8:05 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Tort Talkers may recall that, on November 19, 2010, the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted the Plaintiff’s Petition for Re-argument and withdrew its opinion in Barrick v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 2:59 pm by Kirk Jenkins
We continue our preview of the new civil review grants from the Illinois Supreme Court with Russell v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 3:47 pm
Superior Court (Kimco) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 225 (review denied), the  Third Division  disregarded a discussion in Murphy v. [read post]