Search for: "Settle v. State of California"
Results 341 - 360
of 3,039
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2010, 1:42 pm
In Howard v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
Well-settled law controls our answer. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 11:56 am
In Chindarah v. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 2:32 pm
’” She noted that the United States Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 10:46 am
The State of California won and lost bigly last July 4th. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:08 am
Shroyer v. [read post]
30 Jan 2021, 9:50 am
Google won some of them and settled the rest, and everyone moved on. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 1:41 pm
The relevant plaintiffs are not California residents and do not claim to have suffered harm in that State. [read post]
23 Aug 2020, 6:42 pm
She stated, “The only warranty provided for a product comes from the third-party seller. [read post]
28 Mar 2009, 10:50 am
Challenges to good faith settlements that cut off the rights of non-settling defendants to seek indemnification and contribution from settling defendants are nearly always doomed to failure. [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 7:57 am
We've been asked two questions repeatedly since the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
Further details regarding The People of the State of California v. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 1:20 pm
Moore is agitated, zealous, and strident in his refusal to settle the matter. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 3:35 pm
Last week, a California Court of Appeal took a step towards leveling the playing field in Harrington v. [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 7:47 am
United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 12:03 pm
Mark v. [read post]
13 Aug 2020, 1:55 pm
The California Supreme Court in the 2008 case, Edwards v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
In referring to the recent TCL v Ericsson decision from the Central District of California (see Kat post here), Judge Labson stated:"The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that summary judgment on Count III of the FAC is warranted. [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 8:27 am
Co. of State of Pa., __ Cal.4th __ (2010) (2010 Cal.Lexis 11679), the California Supreme Court held that where the insurance policies did not define the term “suit,” there was a duty to defend and indemnify a contractor that settled a government claim in an administrative adjudicative proceeding before the United States Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals (“IBCA”). [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 9:01 am
Other states have changed procedures and moved forward with executions, but California has not put anyone to death since 2006 because of the legal battle. [read post]
