Search for: "MacDonald v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 49
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Oct 2009, 10:18 am
I recently reported on the monumental decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Pusl v. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 9:17 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal and student-at-law, Editor, First Reference In Stress-Crete Limited v Harriman, 2019 ONSC 2773 (“Stress-Crete”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“the Court”) partially granted an injunction to an employer against its former employee, upholding two out of three restrictive covenants present in the parties’ employment contract. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 3:36 pm
On September 23, 2009, the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down a monumental UIM decision in the case of Pusl v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 9:17 am
”The bright-line rule, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian National Railway Co. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2008, 7:40 pm
Macdonald of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a decision released on December 19th 2007.Justice Macdonald allowed an innocent home owner's claim that a mortgage registered by HSBC Bank of Canada on his property was not a valid charge. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 5:24 pm by David T.S. Fraser
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice just released a decision today in Jones v. [read post]
10 Dec 2012, 3:37 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
In its recent decision in the case of Alexander v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 1:29 pm
Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455-456 [decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California].). [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 6:55 am by Thomas G. Heintzman
In three decisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that a review of a decision interpreting a standard form contract involves a question of law, not a question of mixed fact and law: MacDonald v. [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 7:38 am
MacDonald), 162 N.H. 64, 66, 27 A.3d 813 (New Hampshire Supreme Court 2011); see Sup. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
  The Court quoted a previous Superior Court decision that held "[a]n insured intends an injury if he desired to cause the consequences of his act or if he acted knowing that such consequences were substantially certain to result. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 7:31 am by Andrew Vey
Something of a formula may now be discerned: If you want to enforce a clause, rely on decisions like MacDonald v. [read post]