Search for: "State v. Superior Court"
Results 1681 - 1700
of 11,181
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2014, 6:36 pm
" 530.40 states, "When a criminal action is pending in a superior court, such court, upon application of a defendant, must or may order recognizance or bail as follows... [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of Ford v. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 7:21 am
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 5:00 pm
In Freedom Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
We have spoken about whether an employee can take back their intention to retire in a previous blog post regarding the Ontario Superior Court decision in English v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 10:59 am
Like every other court in New York State, Supreme Court may not convict a defendant of a felony absent compliance with the indictment and waiver of indictment provisions in article I, § 6 of the New York Constitution as was held in People v Wiltshire. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:14 am
Rohrbaugh, the Superior Court held that its previous decision in the case of Pusl v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:39 am
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, another civil procedure case involving a court’s specific jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants sued by out-of-state plaintiffs. [read post]
10 May 2017, 1:29 pm
Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455-456 [decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California].). [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 6:03 am
Shortly before Christmas, the state supreme court decided a littering case captioned State v. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 2:33 pm
I'm not sure if the plaintiff actually expects to keep the case in Washington state courts, but that seems highly unrealistic. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 12:10 pm
Ratliff was argued earlier this year and the Court will hear Hardt v. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 7:08 pm
Moran v. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 12:28 pm
In Lickiss v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 7:25 am
The Superior Court ruled against the Mercer County NJ prosecutor by stating that the 20-minute observation rule was required by State v. [read post]
4 May 2011, 11:13 am
Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 113 P. 3d 1100 (2005), the court found that the arbitration provision was unconscionable because AT&T had not shown that bilateral arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effects of class actions. [read post]
21 May 2008, 7:48 am
Perry v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 2:47 pm
Other Superior Court judges named Wednesday are: Mark V. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 6:25 am
Satkunan v. [read post]
