Search for: "Packard v. State of Cal"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2021, 7:10 pm
One New Jersey appellate court upheld the disqualification of an expert witness who had worked for the State of New Jersey on a case that involved confidential disclosures by the State’s lawyers and its agencies, which disclosures were necessarily involved in the expert witness’s subsequent retention by the State’s adversary in a different case.[10] This decision, like most in this area, turned on a close analysis of the facts and circumstances of the… [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 6:29 am
Cal. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 4:24 pm
Supreme Court unanimously held in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 5:06 pm
Hewlett-Packard Co., 238 Cal. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 9:01 am
Ohio State University v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 2:07 pm
Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-CV-0119-LHK, 2013 U.S. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 10:28 am
Cal. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 9:21 pm
Cal. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:18 am
Elias v. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 5:22 am
Cal. 2008), and 'high performance' and 'top of the line,' addressed in Brothers v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:59 am
Cal. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 6:07 am
Reed, 53 Cal. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 1:01 pm
Universal Health Services, 974 P.2d 1158, 1159-60 (Nev. 1999); Packard v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 2:10 pm
Hewlett-Packard Co. [read post]
11 May 2011, 12:47 pm
Hewlett-Packard Co., --- F. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 10:21 am
Cal.) [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 12:00 pm
The United States Supreme Court explained this rationale in the nineteenth century case, Rude v. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 10:51 am
(referring to the state’s adoption of Canterbury v. [read post]
