Search for: "People v. Superior Court" Results 301 - 320 of 3,469
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Even if or when this Court overturns Roe v. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 3:51 pm
I generally like the published opinions of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
  In a judgment handed down on 23 February 2015 ( [2015] ONSC 1175), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the operators of a right wing message board were publishers of defamatory material concerning a left wing blogger. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 9:06 am
But in a ruling this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal said a judge may, but is not required to, make observations from video evidence.In R. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:45 am by bvertz
A recent Superior Court decision, Childress v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:45 am by bvertz
A recent Superior Court decision, Childress v. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 8:17 am by Kelsey Clinton
On Dec. 1, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Nestlé USA, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 1:15 am by Greg May
Ohaeri  (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 500 (failure to pay fee to reclassify case from limited to unlimited did not cap damages amount to maximum awardable in an unlimited case); Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242 (limits on superior court judge’s power to reconsider rulings of another superior court judge); People v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 1:15 am by Greg May
Ohaeri  (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 500 (failure to pay fee to reclassify case from limited to unlimited did not cap damages amount to maximum awardable in an unlimited case); Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242 (limits on superior court judge’s power to reconsider rulings of another superior court judge); People v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 11:09 am by emagraken
  A more surgical response is to remedy the deficiency by reading in the under-inclusive indigency provision in the Rules to include people who are “in need”: see Schachter v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 11:32 pm by Pamela Fasick
Dismissal of Misdemeanors Because No Courtroom Was Available is UpheldPeople v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 1:57 pm
  Footnote 2 of the opinion says:  "Although the rationale is unclear to this court, Proposition 64 differentiates cannabis, which must be in an unopened, sealed, container, from 'loose cannabis flower,' which only needs to be in a closed container. [read post]