Search for: "Department of Motor Vehicles v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 133
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Apr 2017, 1:18 pm
The Motor Vehicle Accident, Death and TextingThis post examines a recent opinion the Supreme Court -Genesee County, New York issued in a civil case: Vega v. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 5:30 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Platt, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a trial court properly dismissed a Plaintiff’s action against a driver of the other car involved in the subject motor vehicle accident because the other driver had died before the action was filed, the statute of limitations had expired, and there was no evidence to show any fraudulent concealment in order to toll the statute of limitations. [read post]
4 Jan 2020, 5:34 pm by Patricia Salkin
Defendant Pasquale Pisano, on behalf of Pisano Brothers, applied for a used car dealer license from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and listed himself as vice president and his brother as president. [read post]
18 May 2010, 9:20 am by The Law Offices of David S. Shrager
In a 1994 Pennsylvania case, the Court listened to a defendant's argument that the charges of motor vehicle violations and drug charges he was fighting should be dropped. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 10:09 am
(Concurring Op. by Wecht, J.).The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that, as presented in this case, the Regular Use Exclusion contained in motor vehicle insurance policies does not violate the express language of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [MVFRL].The Plaintiff in Rush was a police officer who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving his police vehicle. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:14 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In Smith, the Superior Court stated that the court in Pusl had correctly decided that a section of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, i.e., 75 Pa.C.S.A. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:14 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In Smith, the Superior Court stated that the court in Pusl had correctly decided that a section of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, i.e., 75 Pa.C.S.A. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 5:00 am
April 19, 2023) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the court issued a decision that favored insurance carriers by ruling that the removal of a vehicle from a multiple motor vehicle insurance policy, in which stacked coverage had been previously waived through a waiver form executed by the insured, did not require the insurance carrier to secure another written waiver of stacked coverage from the insured under Section 1738(c).Now, with its January, 2024 decision in the case of… [read post]
22 May 2017, 11:05 am by CJ Haddick
  Moreover, the Court is not persuaded by the ‘implication’ of the Superior Court’s decision in Fleming and, consequently, departs from the conclusion reached by the district court in Williams. [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 12:08 pm by Matt Murphy
On January 22, 2018, Nilsson filed a complaint in federal court in California alleging negligence by General Motors. [read post]
29 Jan 2007, 6:00 am
Superior Court (Gonzalez), S139171, H027976; 133 Cal.App.4th 742; Superior Court of Santa Clara County; CV817959. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Department of Motor Vehicles (1982) 32 Cal.3d 347, 361 (Ford Dealers).) [read post]
5 May 2010, 8:31 am by Meyers Nave
Superior Court (Pitchess motions) to request peace officer personnel records are not available in administrative per se hearings conducted by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on driver’s license suspensions. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 8:01 am
Quick question: If you’re in a Massachusetts motor vehicle accident with an off-duty police officer, and he or she prevents you from either driving away or leaving the scene of the accident until the appropriate police department arrives, is that an “arrest” for legal purposes? [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 2:22 pm by David M. Marchiano
Department of Motor Vehicles (1991) 53 Cal.3d 753 that the term “drive” as used in Vehicle Code section 23512 (prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs), requires proof of “volitional movement. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
  In the case at bar, plaintiffs dispute that NYCTA is in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles. [read post]