Search for: "People ex rel. Clancy v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
The decision narrowly interprets People ex rel. [read post]
2 May 2007, 3:00 pm
Judge Komar cited People ex rel. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 6:00 am
Citing People ex rel. [read post]
7 May 2010, 5:00 am
[People ex rel. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 6:00 am
Clancy v. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 3:30 pm
As an initial matter, the Court of Appeal explained that under People ex rel. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 1:04 pm
The trial court held that there is an absolute bar, relying on Clancy (People ex rel. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 11:48 am
The trial court barred plaintiffs from paying the contingency fees, citing People ex rel. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 10:00 am
In People ex rel. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 4:29 am
The lower court, relying upon People ex rel. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
City of Anaheim, ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 6, 2010), the Court of Appeal closely considered the Supreme Court's Clancy decision (People ex rel. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 11:01 am
See People ex rel. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 7:41 am
The lower court, relying upon People ex rel. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 8:31 am
Compare People ex rel. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 5:45 pm
The oil company argued that the Supreme Court has implied a nonstatutory exception to the privilege in its decisions in People ex rel Clancy v. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 1:41 pm
He relied on a 22 year-old California Supreme Court decision, People ex rel. [read post]
6 Apr 2007, 12:56 am
Apr. 4, 2007) (quoting People ex rel. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 12:23 pm
Although the California Supreme Court noted that its decision in People ex rel. [read post]
