Search for: "Graham v. DaimlerChrysler" Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2007, 6:00 am
Code § 1782) satisfied the pre-litigation demand requirement of Graham v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine. [read post]
18 Dec 2008, 11:00 pm
Thus, where the attorney fee award does not depend on the "catalyst" theory (Graham v. [read post]
20 Nov 2008, 7:22 pm
    As discussed in the earlier 1021.5 post, the Cal Supremes adopted the catalyst theory in Graham v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 2:35 pm by The Complex Litigator
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553 (2004), but also to fee requests under the common-law substantial benefit doctrine). [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 9:57 am by Steven G. Pearl
Finally, the record did not support the application of a 1.75 multiplier to fees incurred in bringing the motion for attorney fees, citing Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1141, and Graham v. [read post]
27 Apr 2013, 11:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
John wrote a lengthy piece reflecting on the Supreme Court’s Kiobel decision, and noting the Court’s recent grant of cert in another Alien Tort Statute case, DaimlerChrysler AG v. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 6:48 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
At Forbes, Michael Bobelian reports on last week’s cert. grant in DaimlerChrysler AG v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 11:13 pm
But one state judge held in September 2006 that it was unconstitutional, asserting in Graham v. [read post]