Search for: "CROSS v. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA" Results 81 - 100 of 1,759
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2014, 9:35 pm by Florian Mueller
But they still haven't put the U.S. part of the dispute behind them.Yesterday the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Samsung's appeal of the district court ruling in the first Apple v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 10:38 pm by Hall Marston
On October 3, 2013, the California Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Kurwa v. [read post]
4 Jan 2019, 3:22 pm
  But the California Court of Appeal steps up to the plate, and this afternoon published an opinion with a very helpful -- and easily remembered -- pointer for civil litigants.When you're drafting a complaint (or, as here, a cross-complaint), do not ask for damages "according to proof". [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Robert Half International Inc., ___ Cal.4th ___ (Aug. 11, 2016), the Supreme Court confirmed that the law is what we thought it was all along: We therefore agree with the Court of Appeal below that “[t]he percentage of fund method survives in California class action cases, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in using it, in part, to approve the fee request in this class action. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 7:33 am by Sophia Cope
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit got it wrong—again—ruling last week in U.S. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:13 pm by WIMS
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 9:15 am by Nancy Braman
District Court for the Southern District of California in the case of Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. [read post]
13 May 2021, 1:15 pm by Steve Brachmann
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Free Stream Media Corp. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 5:43 pm
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the award of punitive damages.On the plaintiff's cross-appeal, however, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination that the the 10-to-1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages awarded by the jury was excessive, and that the proper ratio is 1-to-1. [read post]