Search for: "Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2007, 3:20 am
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., on the issue of whether unsecured creditors with contracts including an attorney fees clause may recover fees for litigation in the bankruptcy court which relates strictly to issues of federal bankruptcy law. [read post]
8 Aug 2010, 5:18 pm
Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Slip Op No. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 3:13 pm
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., was originally filed in March, 2000. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 5:45 pm
Pacific Gas & Elec. [read post]
10 May 2017, 6:17 am
Additional Resources: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 2:26 pm
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1488, fn. 3 [contention was deemed waived because "[a]ppellant did not formulate a coherent legal argument nor did she cite any supporting authority"].) [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 7:59 am
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.. 176 Cal. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 3:19 pm
I, § 19; San Diego Gas Electric Co. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 3:00 am
The district court denied Pacific Gas and Electric’s (“PG&E”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Dan Clark’s Clean Water Act (“CWA”) claim. [read post]
3 Jun 2021, 3:00 am
The district court denied Pacific Gas and Electric’s (“PG&E”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Dan Clark’s Clean Water Act (“CWA”) claim. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm
Co. (2000) 80 Cal.App. 4th 1165, 1175. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 9:14 am
The court held that the third prong in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 4:27 pm
(C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 1:21 pm
Consequently, the requested disclosure fits squarely within the policy rationale underlying the physician-patient privilege.IF OBJECT OF UTILITY FEES IS TO FUND A CITY’SGENERAL REVENUE, THE HANCOCK AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED.Arbor Investment Co. owns property in the City of Hermann and paid utility charges for gas, electricity, water/sewer and refuse/waste. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
Click Here American Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
