Search for: "Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 21
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2015, 7:04 am
During committee discussion of the legislation, a representative of the Alaska Public Defender Agency expressed concern that the definition of `access device’ could potentially be construed to include a driver's license, but committee members did not respond to that concern or indicate whether or not they agreed with it. [read post]
22 May 2008, 11:08 pm
BOTELHO, Petitioners v. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 8:59 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> AmeriPride Services, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:24 am
Air Force publications and technological publications. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 11:01 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 2:13 am
FERC; Public Citizen, Inc., et al. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 10:01 am
The Court stressed that its decision in Brewer v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
Superior Court, 79 P.3d 556, 563 (Cal. 2003).Lower California courts, but not the California Supreme Court, have cited Restatement Third §2 with approval. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 8:05 pm
The government argues that Munoz is “the superior vehicle” for resolving the issue. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 2:22 am
Government officials and agencies from enforcing the minimum essential coverage provisions. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 4:34 am
http://j.st/Swn Amador v. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 9:14 am
Superior Court (Covalt) was not satisfied, the California Public Utilities Code 1759 was not implicated, and the district court retained subject matter jurisdiction over the case. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am
Click Here US District Court Decision in US v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am
Click Here US District Court Decision in US v. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
The bankruptcy court held that the discovery documents at issue could be disclosed to the public, because the public's interest in disclosure of these discovery documents outweighed the priests' privacy interest under Rule 26(c) and that the documents filed in court could be disclosed because they did not contain "scandalous" allegations for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 107(b). [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 11:13 am
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska will deliver the keynote address. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 2:09 pm
Molina v. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 7:16 pm
The Agency’s response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at: U.S. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am
The Agency’s response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
The pollution exclusion does not relieve the Insurers of their duty to defend SFC. [read post]
