Search for: "Hanif v. Housing Authority (1988)"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2013, 7:31 pm
Despite this rule of law, in 1988, the California Court of Appeal decided the case of Hanif v. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 6:51 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 6:51 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635; Nishihama v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:54 pm
Housing Authority, 200 Cal. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 10:48 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 (Hanif),[1] Hamilton argued that because only the amounts paid by plaintiff and her insurer could be recovered, the larger amounts billed by the providers were irrelevant and should be excluded. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 8:21 am
Housing Authority, 200 Cal. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 6:00 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and followed by some other pre-2007 Court of Appeal opinions, an injured plaintiff is limited to medical expenses actually paid; to the extent the reasonable amount of those services is greater, there is no entitlement. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 1:34 am
We begin by reviewing the applicable authorities defining the collateral source rule. 1. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 12:14 pm
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 4:06 pm
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 7:36 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 2:42 pm
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 10:42 am
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 5:15 pm
Housing Authority of Yolo County, 200 Cal.App.3d 635 (1988). [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 3:40 pm
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. [read post]
22 Jul 2008, 8:03 pm
Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and Nishihama v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 4:13 pm
Under the holding of Hanif v Housing Authority (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 and the cases which have followed it, a plaintiff may only recover "up to, and no more than, the actual amount expended or incurred for past medical services so long as that amount is reasonable. [read post]
