Search for: "State v. Concepcion" Results 121 - 140 of 1,030
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 May 2011, 7:32 am
Concepcion states the current interpretation of the law, it may not be the final word on this topic. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 6:22 am
In Concepcion, the Court considered whether states can invalidate arbitration agreements that prohibit class arbitration proceedings. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
S199119, in order to address whether the Federal Arbitration Act, as construed in Concepcion, preempts generally applicable state-law rules of contractual unconscionability. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 11:19 am by rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com
The United States Supreme Court then provided what appears to be bright line guidance on this issue in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:39 pm by rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com
Largent Today a California court issued the first published state court decision addressing whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v Concepcion invalidates the California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 1:11 pm by rlargent@cdflaborlaw.com
Largent This week a California court held that the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
  The opinion also creates a split in authority on whether representative PAGA actions remain inarbitrable post-Concepcion, as held in Brown v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 5:01 am by Victoria VanBuren
Concepcion – holding that arbitration clauses may not be invalidated on the ground that they contain class-action waivers – apply only when the underlying cause of action is based on state law? [read post]
12 Aug 2014, 9:42 pm by H. Scott Leviant
Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 1740] (Concepcion) and invalidated Discover Bank v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 9:12 am by Wystan M. Ackerman
There has been a lot written about what impact the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. [read post]