Search for: "Davidson v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 45
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2011, 12:00 pm by Brad Pauley
Davidson (1974) 12 Cal.3d 335, 346, fn. 9 [Court requested supplemental briefing regarding application of a decision handed down after oral argument].) [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 10:51 am by Daniel E. Cummins
The Supreme Court, without re-examining the evidence, affirmed after concluding that the Superior Court more or less got the standard correct. [read post]
11 Oct 2008, 3:28 am
The Court hinted that it intends to expand sexual discrimination protections, this positive action after so many absurd and hurtful workplace law decisions from the Court the past eight years, including Ledbetter v. [read post]
6 Jan 2019, 8:24 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The Superior Court motion decision, summarized on Slaw here, relied on the Arbitration Act, 1991, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and case law such as Seidel v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 4:00 am by Alan Macek
In Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm by Wolfgang Demino
Texas Supreme Court justices will entertain oral argument on the issue when they convene out of town -- in Houston -- tomorrow.The case is styled Hiawatha Henry, et al. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 7:05 am by Bexis
  The Supreme Court, without re-examining the evidence, affirmed after concluding that the Superior Court more or less got the standard correct. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 6:07 am
Greenmoss, supra (alteration in original) (quoting Harley–Davidson Motorsports, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 1:06 pm by Phil Dixon
The two were charged with second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter following an altercation with Molly’s husband in Davidson County. [read post]
12 Sep 2015, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
Greenmoss, supra (alteration in original) (quoting Harley–Davidson Motorsports, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]