Search for: "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 97
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Dec 2010, 5:13 am by Ted Frank
As we discussed in July, the California Supreme Court upheld an arrangement where Santa Clara hired contingent-fee attorneys to bring a public nuisance case against ARCO. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:03 am by Roy Ginsburg
Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (1980), in which California’s high court “recognized that although employers have the power to terminate employees at will, they may not terminate an employee for a reason that is contrary to public policy. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Superior Court (Atlantic Richfield Co.), ___ Cal.4th ___ (Jul. 26, 2010), is largely focused on contingency-fee agreements between public prosecutors and private counsel in public nuisance cases. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am by R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael Mabry stated the following in his declaration: “We havenever been contacted by Aurora nor [sic] any of its agents in person, by telephone or byfirst class mail to explore options for us to avoid foreclosure as required in CC § 2923.5. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 8:22 am by Moseley Collins
Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 854-855, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 865-866 (2001), citing C.C.P. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 7:26 am by stevemehta
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT JOHN PORTER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. [read post]