Search for: "Supreme Builders"
Results 61 - 80
of 1,018
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2013, 2:09 pm
On October 16, 2013, 60 days after the request was submitted, the California Supreme Court denied Infill Builders’ request to depublish Citizens for Ceres v. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 5:05 am
Haynes Waters Builders, the state supreme court revisited the admission of expert testimony. [read post]
5 May 2010, 1:09 pm
Today, on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders and the Wisconsin Building Association, we filed this brief amici curiae in City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 7:30 am
The venerable completion & acceptance doctrine -- which holds that a builder is immune from personal injury suit filed by injured third parties once the owner has accepted the completed work -- is now officially dead in Washington, according to this... [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 6:43 am
Two United States Supreme Court cases, one from 1844 and one from 1934, establishes a definition of "fiduciary" for purposes of section 523(a)(4). [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 2:35 pm
Supreme Court oral arguments: You can access at this link the transcript of today's oral argument in National Assn. of Home Builders v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 1:13 pm
Speaking as an insurance expert who underwrote and placed hundreds of Builders Risk programs it would be stunning if the Washington Supreme Court rules in favor of Philadelphia. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 5:55 pm
.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent purchaser of residential real estate cannot pursue a contractual claim for implied warranty of habitability as that claim is limited to original homeowners who had a direct contractual relationship with the builder/vendor. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 1:41 am
CC Builders, Inc.; CC Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 1:41 am
CC Builders, Inc.; CC Builders, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2006, 8:51 am
While our Supreme Court doesn't often weigh into this issue, today's case applying the tribal sovereign immunity doctrine to bar a race discrimination claim filed by a pipe-fitter and equipment operator on a construction project is a useful reminder of the... [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 9:19 am
In April 2010, a judge of the BC Supreme Court held that loans which the Bank proposed to advance to the receiver took priority over the prior liens. [read post]
1 Sep 2018, 9:28 am
Southern Green Builders, LP and Sam Seidel v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 7:28 am
The Supreme Court held that construction contracts impose an implied duty on a builder to perform its work in a workmanlike manner. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 7:49 pm
I had an admiralty professor at law school who would often refer to the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as ... get this ... the Supremes! [read post]
29 May 2011, 8:02 am
Two other builders splashed the hull and the original builder sought to enforce his rights under the Act. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 10:28 pm
., 244 Ariz. 383, 419 P.3d 546 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court recently held that a Contractual Liability Exclusion in homeowner policies did not apply to a claim for negligent excavation against the Insured, an alleged builder-vendor, because the claim arose from the Insured’s alleged breach of a common law duty to construct a home as a reasonable builder rather than solely from the contract between the Insured and the plaintiff. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and other trade associations petitioned for review of the amended rule on two grounds: (1) that the decision to abandon the opt-out provision was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); and (2) that EPA failed to convene a panel of representatives of small businesses before issuing the new rule, in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 7:25 am
Structal filed a builder’s lien against the property. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 4:06 pm
Do not, under any circumstances, do what the party did here, which was to elect against filing a writ, wait to see if they win at the bench trial anyway, and if they lose, then file an appeal asserting an erroneous denial of your request for a discretionary waiver.The California Supreme Court holds that, at that point, you've got to affirmatively show prejudice -- i.e., that the result would have been different if the case was resolved by a jury instead of a judge. [read post]
