Search for: "Sellers v. General Motors Corp"
Results 1 - 20
of 74
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2023, 5:39 am
The Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) is increasing its enforcement in the motor-vehicle-repossession space. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
In particular, the Second Circuit in SEC v. [read post]
8 Mar 2023, 5:01 am
From ABC Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 4:49 pm
v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
In Francis v. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 11:47 am
Background Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 7:53 am
Readers not familiar with Lordstown’s story may be interested to know that the company’s operations are based in the former Lordstown plant of General Motors. [read post]
22 Jan 2020, 11:06 am
When a motor failed at the Alabama facility, Fives rejected Outokumpu’s complaint, arguing that any fault lay with Fives’ subcontractor, GE Energy Power Conversion France (a French subsidiary of General Electric that had built and installed the motor). [read post]
20 Jan 2020, 3:55 pm
It is also intended "to deter sellers from making false and misleading representations in order to protect the public. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm
Because of the rarity of such legislative intent, the Federal Rule generally preempts predecessor statutes.2 In Southern Natural Gas Company v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am
Illinois Department of Revenue (1967) and Quill Corp. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2018, 5:00 pm
Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
Some general issues regarding contractual attorney’s fees are discussed below. [read post]
25 May 2018, 10:01 am
We were waiting all week to cover the atrocious Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
25 May 2018, 10:01 am
We were waiting all week to cover the atrocious Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
4 May 2018, 6:50 am
A seller is also not required to warn of dangers that are generally known and recognized, and therefore a product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous if the danger associated with the product is one the product's users generally recognize. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 136 Cal.App.4th 1255 (2006)). [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 4:00 am
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 136 Cal.App.4th 1255 (2006)). [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 4:32 am
Continuing its themed approach to argument days this session, the court is hearing two Fourth Amendment cases today, both involving searches of motor vehicles. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 4:43 am
Siegel v Jozac Corp., No. 78465, 2001 Ohio App. [read post]
