Search for: "King v. Superior Court" Results 101 - 120 of 526
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Sep 2014, 3:15 pm by Dave Maass
ET Location: Courtroom of the Honorable Gary Furnari Essex County Historic Court House, Courtroom 211 470 Martin Luther King Jr. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 11:22 am
The Prof had the pleasure of spending the afternoon in King County Superior Court in Kent watching the illustrious Karen Koehler do her thing at closing. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 9:21 am by Gene Quinn
On Monday, December 13, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a non-decision in the matter of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 11:25 am by Cicely Wilson
Accordingly, the order of the Superior Court was reversed, and the trial court’s orders were reinstated.Read More: PA Supreme Court denies prisoner’s right to expungeCounty of Grant v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
In its recent decision in the case of Hackett v. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 11:37 am by James M. Beard
Tabingo filed suit in King County Superior Court against American Seafoods including in his complaint a cause of action for punitive damages based upon the unseaworthiness of the vessel. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 11:37 am by James M. Beard
Tabingo filed suit in King County Superior Court against American Seafoods including in his complaint a cause of action for punitive damages based upon the unseaworthiness of the vessel. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 7:57 pm
Superior Court -- California's Second District Court of Appeal grapples with hard facts that made bad law. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 3:57 pm by Mary Whisner
(That was after serving as chief deputy prosecutor for the King County Prosecutor's Office and being a judge of the King County Superior Court. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 3:01 pm
The superior court also granted a CR 54(b) certification.West v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:45 am
[…]” (emphasis added)The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held (BC667011) that, because Feud tried to portray de Havilland as realistically as possible, it was not ‘transformative’ and therefore not eligible for protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.The decision was appealed to Court of Appeal of the State of California - Second Appellate District, which yesterday decidedto reverse the lower court’s… [read post]