Search for: "Shorts v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,666
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2012, 5:30 pm
Superior Court. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 6:10 pm
The Court then reviewed Marlo v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 2:52 pm
Superior Court (Allen) (6/2/11) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 2150776. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 1:00 pm
Superior Court, no. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 5:00 am
Superior Court, supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 7:30 pm
Superior Court (ARCO), no. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 9:35 am
These things should be short. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:01 am
Today the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Cassel v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 5:43 pm
In the first of two opinions issued by that Court today, the Court considered, in UPS v. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 12:34 pm
Who says the California Supreme Court can't be short and to the point? [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 7:00 pm
by Louise Béchamp In an interesting case, the Superior Court of Quebec in Syndicat des agents de la paix en services correctionnels du Québec v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 6:26 pm
by Dennis Crouch Superior Industries v. [read post]
23 May 2018, 12:39 pm
The juvenile court would lose jurisdiction over him entirely in three short years. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 5:57 pm
Still well short of the 5 years that they spent on Martinez v. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Superior Court, no. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
Afflicted with a “culture of complacency[1],” the Ontario Superior Court has long struggled to timely advance cases to trial. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 6:30 pm
The Superior Court affirmed. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 1:30 pm
Given the split in the Court of Appeal, it's pretty much certain that the California Supreme Court will step in.So why write something incredibly long when, in short order, the only thing that readers are going to care about anyway is the controlling decision from the Supreme Court.Short opinion. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 1:01 pm
Or a nice little short one that's pretty simple? [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 11:29 am
Especially since my strong, strong sense is that, regardless of what the law is, the factfinder is going to hold it against the patient if they do not get up on the stand and demonstrate some passive lucidity.In short, if they say you're still crazy, you've got a right, but you'd be crazy to invoke it. [read post]
