Search for: "Crown, Cork "
Results 61 - 80
of 86
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2010, 6:00 am
Crown, Cork and Seal Company (August 27, 2010) ___Cal.App.4th ___ (Second Dist., Div. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 7:00 am
In addition, via a later amendment, the Maryland General Assembly disallowed the amnesty for companies “eligible” to use the 2004 “Settlement Period” granted to companies with Delaware holding company corporate income tax issues following Maryland’s favorable ruling in the SYL and Crown Cork & Seal cases. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:43 am
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:17 pm
Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 2:17 pm
Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 5:15 am
Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 176 n.13 (1974), and to class members who filed separate suits after class certification was denied, see Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 8:00 pm
Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1239 ["Negligence and strict products liability are separate and distinct bases for liability that do not automatically collapse into each other because the plaintiff might allege both when a product warning contributes to her injury"].)We likewise discount decisions from those jurisdictions that differ from California by categorically excluding from liability certain defendants (see, e.g., Huck v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 5:34 am
Utah, 414 U.S. 540 (1974), Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
But there was no Swiss company “Crown Cork & Seal CO” registered at the address indicated in the notice of appeal, which was the correct address of the “Crown Cork AG” company. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 11:53 am
That case (and the 1983 decision in Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc. v Parker) considered the effect of a failed class action on later filings by the individuals who would have been members of a class if the class action had succeeded. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:41 am
Crown Cork & Seal Co. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 6:46 am
Under the Supreme Court’s rulings in American Pipe & Construction Co. v Utah and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v Parker, the filing of a class action tolls the statute of limitations for all asserted members of the class, explained the Fifth Circuit. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 10:33 am
For example, we stated that in Crown Cork, “the [Supreme C]ourt ratified the existence of the prosecution laches defense; it did not apply the defense there in the absence of intervening rights,” and we noted that “in General Talking Pictures, the Court rejected the defense of prosecution laches because there was no evidence of intervening public rights. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 1:59 am
Crown Cork & Seal Co. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:23 am
Nash v. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 3:09 pm
The application that led to 5,260,291 took 13 years to allowance. [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 1:10 am
In his verdict from a nonjury trial, a judge ruled that attorney Karen Senser and Segre & Senser must reimburse Crown Cork & Seal the $4 million, as well as attorney fees and interest. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 9:56 am
Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. [2] In Girling, the Court of Appeal had expressly rejected the argument that retirement benefits must be deducted from an award of damages. [read post]
1 Apr 2018, 4:20 pm
Nearly a decade later, in Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2022, 1:35 am
Research and Resources Boland, Michael James, Corporate Liability under the Harassment, Harmful Communications & Related Offences Act 2020: Outstanding Questions (2022), University College Cork – School of Law Marcus, J. [read post]
