安裝中文字典英文字典辭典工具!
安裝中文字典英文字典辭典工具!
|
- Admit or deny - Advocate Magazine
After all, the RFA chapter itself (Sections 2033 010 to 2033 420) is contained within the Civil Discovery Act However, upon closer research into the scant published case law discussing RFA, you will be surprised to discover that this is not necessarily so Contrary to appearances, RFA are actually not “discovery devices,” per se
- St. Mary v. Super. Ct. :: 2014 :: California Courts of . . . - Justia Law
The Superior Court of California, Monterey County No H038918 Trial Court: Monterey County Superior Court Superior Court No : M111895 Trial Judge: The Honorable Kay T Kingsley Attorneys for Petitioner Lisa St Mary: Law Office of David M Hollingsworth David M Hollingsworth Real Parties in Interest Thomas Schellenberg and Katherine Mills: In
- St. Mary v. Superior Court – CourtListener. com
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LISA ST MARY, No H038918 (Monterey County Petitioner, Super Ct No M111895) v Respondent, Real Parties in Interest
- Is the Case Still Good Law? - Case Finding and Advanced Searching . . .
To determine whether a case is still good law, you need to check the subsequent history of the case as well as subsequent citations to see how other cases have treated your case by using citators (Shepardizing on Lexis or KeyCiting on Westlaw)
- Enough with the gotcha Requests for Admissions and the procedural . . .
In St Mary v Superior Court (January 31, 2014), the Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District), granting a petition for a writ of mandamus directed at a discovery ruling (a true rarity), explained the full procedural framework related to Requests for Admissions
- St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) | FindLaw - FindLaw Caselaw
Case opinion for CA Court of Appeal St Mary v Superior Court Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw
- St. Mary v. Superior Court of Cal. for the Cnty. of Monterey
St Mary seeks a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order deeming the 41 Schellenberg RFAs admitted She contends in her petition that real parties' Motion was defective in that it did not constitute a motion to compel further responses to RFAs under section 2033 290
- St. Mary v. Superior Court - Quimbee
Lisa St Mary (plaintiff) invested $475,000, her life savings, with Cedar Funding, Inc (Cedar Funding) (defendant) The entire investment was lost St Mary sued Cedar Funding, Thomas Schellenberg, and Katherine Mills (defendants) for fraud
|
|
|