Search for: "Benz v. USA" Results 21 - 40 of 86
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2014, 6:53 pm by Barry Barnett
And they brought the action in California -- not where Daimler's main United States sub (Mercedes-Benz USA or MBUSA) had incorporated (Delaware) or the state in which MBUSA kept its main place of business. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 7:02 am by PaulKostro
GIL & FRANCINE WEISMAN, PRECISION CARS OF ATLANTIC CITY, R&S IMPORTS, RICH FIRE PROTECTION and MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, App. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 2:41 pm by John Bellinger
  Applying an agency theory, the panel concluded that Daimler AG had sufficient contacts with the state of California by virtue of the actions of its subsidiary Mercedes Benz USA to give California personal jurisdiction over the German parent , even though Mercedes Benz USA had no involvement with the alleged facts in Argentina. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 12:21 pm by Steven B. Katz
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 296 (2012) (rev. granted, briefing held pending Iskanian); Franco v. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 5:11 am by Yishai Schwartz
As the Supreme Court explained, California was neither Daimler’s (nor Mercedes Benz USA’s) place of incorporation nor its principal place of business. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 1:30 pm by Niloofar Henzaki
(Floyd’s Belgrade) filed a lawsuit against Daimler Vans USA LLC (DVUSA) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA). [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 10:29 pm
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, in which it denied an objection to a Notice of Designation of the case as a mandatory complex business case. [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:27 pm by Ad Law Defense
  That was one of the questions posed to a Utah jury in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]