Search for: "MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORP."
Results 21 - 40
of 102
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am
Each Thursday we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 10:00 am
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 807 is an extreme example. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 10:00 am
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 807 is an extreme example. [read post]
28 Feb 2015, 8:19 pm
Toyota, Subaru, General Motors, Nissan, and Mitsubishi later joined these manufacturers in recalling autos with possibly defective passenger-side air bags. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 1:30 pm
National Screen Service Corp. and Zenith Radio Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 12:52 pm
Mitsubishi Motors Corp is recalling cars made with Takata Corp air bags in Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the U.S. [read post]
29 Mar 2014, 4:05 pm
The majority seemed to doubt whether there is any such thing as the "effective vindication" theory in the first place, describing its genesis as "dictum in Mitsubishi Motors." [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 10:00 am
The auto parts were sold to a wide range of U.S. automakers and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign automakers, including Fiat S.p.A. affiliate of the Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors, Honda Motor Co., Mazda Motor Corp., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Nissan Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Subaru, owned by Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 11:14 am
Livingston (1964), and further declined to privilege what the Court in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:54 am
While the majority did recognize the existence of a “judge-made” “effective vindication exception,” it noted that this exception originated as mere dictum in the Supreme Court’s Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:23 am
See Green Tree Financial Corp. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 3:00 pm
Ostensibly at least, the decision turned on careful consideration of the “effective vindication doctrine,” which is widely regarded to have originated in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 2:10 pm
Justice Scalia found the origin of the “effective vindication” exception in dictum in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:45 am
While the majority did recognize the existence of a “judge-made” “effective vindication exception,” it noted that this exception originated as mere dictum in the Supreme Court’s Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 2:54 pm
See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 10:17 am
Second, Justice Scalia rejects the underlying premise to the notion that “class action waivers must be set aside if they interfere with the enforcement of federal rights,” a proposition plaintiffs attempted to draw from an earlier Supreme Court precedent, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2013, 11:19 am
Therefore, the Supreme Court's statement in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 6:16 am
Justice Kagan asked Kellogg to distinguish AMEX from Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:35 am
However, a number of Justices were struggling with whether and how an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver could be reconciled with the “effective vindication doctrine” set forth in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 5:00 am
Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc., supra, 183 Cal.App.4th 986, to the extent they hold otherwise [read post]
