Search for: "Sellers v. Superior Court*" Results 81 - 100 of 398
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2011, 4:48 am by Bexis
(2) Whether the Superior Court's creation of a new cause of action for negligent design defect conflicts with this Court's settled precedent limiting product liability claims against manufacturers and sellers of prescription drugs? [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 3:23 am by Peter Mahler
Accordingly, dismissal of both the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims was warranted (see generally Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney Inc., 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 6:15 am by John Jascob
Lastly, the court justified its decision from a California Court of Appeals holding in the 1983 Hall v. [read post]
15 May 2007, 12:55 pm
This duty may arise in one of two ways: (1) by virtue of the existence of a fiduciary relationship; or (2) in the case where there is a buyer and a seller, where one party may possess knowledge not possessed by the other and may thereby enjoy a position of superiority over the other. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:48 am by Heather Douglas
Therefore, Justice Ian Nordheimer of the Ontario Superior Court stayed the proceedings until the government paid for counsel. [read post]
15 Mar 2011, 2:02 pm
(2) Whether the Superior Court's creation of a new cause of action for "negligent design defect" conflicts with this Court's settled precedent limiting product liability claims against manufacturers and sellers of prescription drugs? [read post]
12 Oct 2012, 6:26 am by William A. Ruskin
  The Bridgeport Superior Court’s decision is arguably a departure from the precedent established in Burkert v. [read post]