Search for: "4th Dist. App. Court"
Results 61 - 80
of 896
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2008, 9:50 am
(App. 1 Dist. 2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 510, the First Appellate District Court held that a prime contractor is not liable under the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (California Public Contract Code Section 4100 et sq.) for failing to grant a subcontract to the subcontractor originally listed in a public agency project bid, which was accepted by the public agency, where the public agency subsequently granted a change order that effectively deleted the… [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 2:25 am
LEXIS 381 (4th Cir. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 4:09 am
LEXIS 2852 (4th Dist. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 9:46 am
D054550 (4th Dist. [read post]
6 May 2011, 2:02 pm
App. 4th Dist., Apr. 25, 2011). [read post]
25 May 2017, 11:20 am
App. 4th 536, 559 (2000). [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 6:22 am
The Court of Appeal of California (Fourth District) recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action alleging a solar energy system provider violated the Rosenthal Act, California’s parallel version of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 4:43 am
The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, recently reversed in part and affirmed in part a trial court’s judgment sustaining the defendant loan servicer's and loan owner's demurrer (motion to dismiss) based on res judicata. [read post]
24 May 2010, 6:03 am
LEXIS 711 (4th Dist. [read post]
23 Dec 2007, 6:54 am
LEXIS 1312 (4th Dist. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 4:19 am
Ridgeway, 4th Dist. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 1:21 am
Dist. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 10:21 am
App. 4th 496 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2015 – Google Scholar The plaintiff sued its former attorneys for legal malpractice. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 3:22 am
LEXIS 1327 (4th Dist. [read post]
13 Jan 2007, 3:20 pm
LEXIS 8 (4th Dist. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 8:31 am
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently reversed summary judgment awarded in favor of the defendant based on violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which prohibits the recording of confidential communications without the knowledge or consent of the other party, and the intentional recording of communications using a cellular or cordless telephone. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 5:22 pm
App. 4th Dist., December 14, 2011.) [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 9:35 pm
Dist. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 9:40 am
App. 4th ___, 2010 WL 728571, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, citing a long line of cases going back to Greyhound Corp. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 5:59 am
App. 4th 489 (2011) on Wednesday, October 19, 2011. [read post]
