Search for: "People v. Superior Court"
Results 621 - 640
of 3,255
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2016, 4:14 am
For example, in the most notable New York dog possession case, the Court in Travis v. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 1:10 pm
It is now on track to be heard next month in the Fresno County Superior Court. [read post]
6 Jan 2019, 8:24 pm
The Superior Court motion decision, summarized on Slaw here, relied on the Arbitration Act, 1991, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and case law such as Seidel v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 5:57 am
In the case of Wren v. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 2:22 pm
But that was the backdrop for a recent case, People v. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 6:45 pm
By Tejpreet (Tanya) Sambi In a recent Ontario Superior Court decision, Nahum v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 7:11 am
However, this right is so new that the Court also grants the individual defendants qualified immunity, as no one violated a clearly-established right.The case is Burns v. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 12:09 pm
Chambers, another Superior Court Justice Thomas P. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 10:05 pm
The case is STATE v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 6:38 pm
People v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:11 pm
Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 577, 598; Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 2:22 pm
(Tribal Court Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers; Insurance Coverage) Solenex, LLC v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 10:13 am
Superior Court, 157 P.3d 1017, 1022 (Cal. 2007) (emphasis added), one would reasonably expect that the California definition was categorically broader than the definition at common law, which requires a "substantial step towards committing the crime," United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:57 am
In 1883, in Pace v. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 10:10 am
v. [read post]
23 Nov 2009, 6:39 am
A few lawyers have told me the view this as a Marbury v. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 3:10 pm
See Clark v. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 2:34 pm
The lower panel held that People v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 2:26 pm
Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99; see also Landry v. [read post]
25 May 2023, 11:06 am
As Wurman and Fredrickson write, the Court concluded “that the law treated people differently based on race because it prohibited marriage based on the race of the other party to the marriage. [read post]
