Search for: "State v. Mobil Oil Corp."
Results 81 - 100
of 204
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2010, 6:32 pm
Exxon Mobil Oil Corp., a case in which a federal district court in San Francisco dismissed a climate change suit brought by Eskimo villagers who claim that emissions from oil, energy and utility companies have caused Arctic sea ice to recede, threatening their village. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 6:26 am
In Convergys Corp. v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 1:28 am
Socony Mobil Oil Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 188 and King v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:03 am
Supreme Court in Decker v. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:23 pm
In addition, contrary to the respondents' contentions, the order appealed from is appealable as of right, as it decided motions made upon notice and affected a substantial right of the parties (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 7:23 pm
In addition, contrary to the respondents' contentions, the order appealed from is appealable as of right, as it decided motions made upon notice and affected a substantial right of the parties (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v]; Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 9:39 am
Economic injury is not by itself within the zone of interests which SEQRA seeks to protect (see Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d at 777; Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 5:38 pm
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit announced in Broadcom Corp. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 3:00 am
Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2010); Vega v. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 4:16 pm
The Frye test emphasizes "'counting scientists' votes," rather than verifying the soundness of a scientific conclusion (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447 [2006]). [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 6:05 am
Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)). [read post]
28 Apr 2014, 8:43 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 10:07 am
After that hearing, at which scientific literature was introduced and doctors for both the planitiffs and defendants testified, Justice Mayer ruled that plaintiffs would not be allowed to offer expert testimony at trial in support of their MCS claims:In New York, evidence based on novel scientific theories or techniques is considered admissible only upon a showing of general acceptance within the relevant scientific community (People v Carrieri, 49 AD3d 660, 854 NYS2d 427 [2d Dept 2008];… [read post]
30 Mar 2022, 7:56 am
The Supreme Court pushed-back again on functional claims–perhaps most notably in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 7:33 am
ExxonMobile Corp., Civ. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
United States, 597 F. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 6:42 am
Allied Capital Corp. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 7:36 am
Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So. 2d 16, and State v. [read post]
6 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
In Exxon-Mobil Corp. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
The Seventh Circuit in Cunningham Charter Corp. v. [read post]
