Search for: "Light v. State Bar"
Results 4961 - 4980
of 5,598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Oct 2009, 4:58 am
To " negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'" (Belt Painting Corp. v TIG Ins. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 4:42 am
" The district court suppressed the CFO's statements to the Irell lawyers, and also referred the firm to the California State Bar for possible discipline in light of numerous perceived violations of state rules of professional conduct.The 9th Circuit disagreed and reversed the suppression order. [read post]
3 Oct 2009, 4:01 am
In House v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 9:46 pm
I am thankful to my friend Eugene White for drawing to my attention a recent case from the ACT where a solicitor, David Landers, had some difficulties in dealing with ACT authorities on behalf of his client, a teacher who wanted to retire and get a payout due to illness.Because of the significance of this decision, I have set out the judgment in full.DAVID LANDER v COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY[2009] ACTSC 117 (11 September 2009)APPEAL - Appeal against… [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 6:49 am
In the latest and strongest worded of such decisions, the Western District of Texas federal court last week decided Ruben A. v. [read post]
29 Sep 2009, 6:54 am
See Vitronics Corp. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 3:24 pm
The Patent Office contends that the change is obvious in light of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 5:00 am
(ITC 337 Law Blog) What every transactional counsel should know – consequences of missing provisions in M&A documents: Carotek v Kobayashi Ventures; Gerber Scientific International v Satisloh (Property intangible) Troll Tracker suit settles after malice bar raised: Albritton v Cisco(Patent Baristas) (IPEG)(EDTexweblog.com) (The Prior Art) (IAM) US Patents – Decisions CAFC construes term found in specification but not in the… [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
For one thing, failure-to-recall claims are barred by the state of the art defense: [N]o common law duty exists. . .requiring a manufacturer to recall a product after the product has left the manufacturer’s control. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
For one thing, failure-to-recall claims are barred by the state of the art defense: [N]o common law duty exists. . .requiring a manufacturer to recall a product after the product has left the manufacturer’s control. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
For one thing, failure-to-recall claims are barred by the state of the art defense: [N]o common law duty exists. . .requiring a manufacturer to recall a product after the product has left the manufacturer’s control. [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 6:10 pm
Petitioners did not face so much as a state-bar investigation, and they remain members in good standing of the Iowa bar in private practice in Council Bluffs. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 1:57 pm
Another recitation on the high bar for finding inequitable conduct. [read post]
26 Sep 2009, 3:32 am
However, Deleon's analysis seems to have taken a major hit in light of the California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Arias v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 1:58 pm
Mar. 31, 2009) (per curiam) (“The number of grounds for challenging an arbitration award has been substantially reduced in light of [Hall Street] and [Citigroup]. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 10:34 am
(The case is Thayer v. [read post]
25 Sep 2009, 4:00 am
Last week, the Delaware State Bar Association sent an unprecedented comment to the Securities and Exchange Commission arguing for maintaining the primacy of Delaware law, especially in light of recent amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law and the “significant equitable limitations on the power of the board of directors to frustrate stockholder electoral efforts. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
United States, 986 F. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 4:23 am
U.S. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 11:00 am
II. [*3] The Governor has raised a threshold question as to Senator Skelos's standing to sue in light of the stringent criteria for legislator standing that we adopted in Silver v Pataki (96 NY2d 532, 539-540 [2001]). [read post]
