Search for: "Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co." Results 1 - 19 of 19
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2013, 8:08 pm by John W. Arden
Darius Sturmer, contributor to Antitrust Law Daily.A physician and a pair of physical therapy clinics, along with their principals, could have violated the federal RICO Act by orchestrating an alleged scheme to defraud State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. through the filing of claims for physical therapy services that were medically unnecessary or not actually performed, the federal district court in Ann Arbor, Michigan has decided… [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 6:11 am by John Bursch
Hyten, the Court of Appeals upheld the “easily ascertainable rule” set forth in State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 2:50 pm by Barsumian Armiger
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Johnson’s insurer, intervened in the case and joined with Johnson’s widow and her estate, Brown, and B&T, in arguing that the MCS-90 endorsement should apply binding Progressive to pay any final judgment in the case. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 9:11 pm
Kisina had submitted to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, along with verification of treatment forms seeking payment for procedures she purportedly performed on two motor vehicle accident victims. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 10:13 am
" [Here is a link to the Court of Appeals opinion in Jukupko: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2006, 7:40 am
Reversed and remanded, with instructions to recalculate the amount of retroactive child support owed to J.A.P.State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2021, 2:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
” See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 5:18 am by Mike Aylward
  State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 4:30 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 179-87 (2005) concluded that the Act applies to non-residents’ claims when the circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in Illinois. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
See Williams, 549 U.S. at 343, 356-57; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]