Search for: "Standard Oil Co. of California v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 240
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2018, 5:06 pm
Hewlett-Packard Co., 238 Cal. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 1:02 pm
Standard Oil Co. of California that held federal courts may hear common law disputes that concern “essentially federal matters. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 5:12 am
California has little interest in legislating behavior at such refineries and oil fields. [read post]
13 May 2009, 4:59 pm
Despite the California Supreme Court's conclusion that gasoline purchasers failed even to imply a price-fixing conspiracy among major oil companies, the Ninth Circuit U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 10:25 pm
Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435-436 (Linder).) [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
SeeEisner v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 1:35 pm
V. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 12:53 pm
The Court noted that early decisions, including Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 2:43 pm
Shell Oil Co., 2011 WL 1522377 (N.D.Cal. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 9:27 pm
Shell Oil Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1651, 1658, another medical monitoring case, which states without citing any authority whatsoever that "medical monitoring damages reimburse the specific cost of periodic medical testing which is proved by a reasonable medical certainty to be necessary. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 6:43 am
,No. 07-0599Scheduled for oral argument before the Texas Supreme Court on Sep. 11, 2008OPINION BELOW: Republic Drilling Co. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
Other states are permitted to use either the federal standard or the California standard, but (unlike California) are not allowed to set their own standards that deviate from the federal norm. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm
In County of Sacramento v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 11:16 am
Hendricks v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
Shell Oil Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 785, 790 (McDonald).) [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 8:12 am
Smucker Co., No. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 8:54 am
Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (holding that Clayton Act does not confer standing for general economic harm), the Court observed that the relevant language of the Connecticut Antitrust Act differed from the Clayton Act. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 11:09 am
The plaintiff claims that the company violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act due to its alleged misclassification of the oil field worker as an independent contractor and not an employee. [read post]
2 May 2011, 1:30 pm
See Steele Co. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 2:34 pm
Arabian American Oil Co. [read post]