Search for: "Day v. Personal Service Insurance Company et al" Results 41 - 60 of 167
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2013, 8:30 am by Law Lady
JOHN CRAMER, as emergency temporary guardian of the Ward, Appellee. 4th District.Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Damages -- Future medical expenses -- Collateral source benefits -- Medicare benefits of developmentally disabled adult plaintiff -- Trial court erred in excluding from jury evidence of plaintiff's receipt of medical services under Medicare program for purpose of determining future medical expenses -- Because there is no evidence that plaintiff contributed to the financing of… [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm by Law Lady
GHARAM MAALI, Appellee. 5th District.Dissolution of marriage -- Equitable distribution -- Businesses -- Valuation -- Goodwill -- Alimony -- No competent, substantial evidence supported trial court's valuation of the parties' insurance company -- Trial court's exclusion of company's liabilities in its determination of fair market value led to significant overvaluation of the company in equitable distribution plan -- Trial court's… [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
At least eight other states—Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota—are also considering fair access bills, some of which would apply to payment processors, payment networks, and credit card companies and networks in addition to banks and insurers. [read post]
10 Nov 2012, 2:14 pm by Law Lady
Appeals -- Appellate court lacks jurisdiction of appeal of final judgment where no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of date judgment was final and appealable -- Motion for supplemental final judgment was not an authorized and timely motion that would suspend rendition of final judgment -- Supplemental final judgment ruling on entitlement to attorney's fees is not final or appealable where amount to be awarded has not been determined
CATALINA HALNAT, LLC, et… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 7:04 am
The anitrust case (Pacific  Bell Telephone, et al., v. linkLine Communications, et al., 07-512) is a test of the theory that a “prize squeeze” violates the Sherman Act. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 3:14 am by Nassiri Law
That case is EEOC v Mathews Management et al, and is being pursued in a federal district court in Arkansas. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 2:25 pm by Arthur F. Coon
California State Lands Commission, et al (San Francisco Waterfront Partners II, LLC, et al) (1st Dist., Div. 4, 2015) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 2015 WL 5450294. [read post]