Search for: "Garcia v. Superior Court"
Results 41 - 60
of 129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2019, 2:49 pm
The court in Garcia v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 11:20 am
Summary of the Facts of the Case of Luis Garcia v. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 3:27 pm
Since the Jan. 9 decision of Jesus Arrieta v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 6:50 am
On July 31, Duenas met Victor Garcia. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
On December 4, 2008, the trial court ordered Garcia committed to the State Department of Mental Health for an indeterminate term. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 2:20 pm
V, section 10.) [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 658 N.W.2d 127 (Mich. 2003)) or the Sixth Circuit (Garcia v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 4:45 pm
Garcia v. [read post]
25 Feb 2024, 6:42 pm
Garcia v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 8:04 am
The case of Conrad v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 6:03 am
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit 2003); U.S. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 4:43 pm
Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1462.) [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 11:52 am
On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 6:40 pm
Casa-Garcia v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
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]
5 Jan 2019, 7:57 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2006, 6:00 pm
Garcia(310) 228-3747dgarcia@sheppardmullin.com [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 7:51 am
Superior Court (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1848,1854. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm
22-7163, Judge Rao, joined by Judges Katsas and Pan, affirmed the decision of the district court to remand to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia a suit brought by the District asserting that various oil and gas companies violated D. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 2:27 am
6-12-2008 California:This district's Court of Appeal yesterday rejected a man's claim that the state's sex offender registration law violates equal protection by requiring mandatory registration for individuals who engage in oral copulation with a minor, but not for those who engage in sexual intercourse.Affirming Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven D. [read post]
