Search for: "Concepcion v. United States"
Results 281 - 300
of 459
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2011, 6:10 pm
Concepcion. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 6:23 am
Judge Ware in July certified a class of “All persons who purchased or acquired an iPhone in the United States and entered into a two-year agreement with Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC for iPhone voice and data service anytime from June 29, 2007 to the present. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 9:06 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has issued an opinion stating the availability of class arbitration is a threshold question for the courts, not an arbitrator, to decide. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 1:26 pm
In Green v. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 12:51 pm
Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S.), also hales from the Ninth Circuit, but this one unites businesses against that court's decision. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:29 am
Conventional wisdom says that the current iteration of the United States Supreme Court is pro-business. [read post]
2 May 2011, 6:17 am
-citizen mothers outside of the United States, and those born to unmarried U.S. [read post]
15 Jul 2014, 12:16 pm
First, as to the bad news: Boxed in by the United States Supreme Court's decisions on the enforceability of arbitration agreements, including in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:19 pm
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:41 pm
In April 2011, several years after the Court of Appeals had ordered the trial court to reconsider its prior order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility, LLC v Concepcion, which reiterated the rule that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced according to their terms and held that “[r]equiring the… [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 8:31 pm
” Therefore, Viking petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that Iskanian is preempted by federal law and the U.S. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 11:33 am
For example, the United States Supreme Court has held that illegal contract provisions are void. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:57 am
Concepcion. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 5:01 am
In addition, as the Court discussed at length in its Memorandum of Decision, after the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 9:00 am
Morgan v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 3:50 am
Supreme Court decided several cases related to arbitration: On April 27, 2011, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California law with regard to class arbitration in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. [read post]
4 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
Superior Court was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 7:16 am
Applying its rational from AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 3:37 pm
Concepcion opens the door to a way for at least some defendants to avoid having to defend class actions at all, while Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
