Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under joint and several liability or (in the U.S.) all sums, a plaintiff (claimant) is entitled to claim an obligation incurred by any of the promisors from all of them jointly and also from each of them individually. Thus the plaintiff has more than one cause of action: if she pursues one promisor and he fails to pay the sum due, her action is ...
Joint and Several Liability. To support this allegation, Tiffany referred to Gucci America, Inc. v. Exclusive Imports International. The court held that, however, that the two cases were entirely distinguishable from one another because eBay "never takes possession of items sold through its website, and that eBay does not directly sell the ...
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
Division, and the property which is the subject of this lawsuit is located in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. DEFENDANT 4. The City of Joliet is an Illinois municipal corporation, located approximately 40 miles southwest of Chicago in Will County, Illinois. The City’s government offices are located at
If you were affected, you can file a claim at this site with your computer’s serial number and proof of repairs. Synchrony Bank Total settlement: $2.6 million.
Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 489 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) is a court decision by Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal illustrating the principle of joint and several liability when combined with comparative negligence. It also features a unique twist in that the plaintiff and one of the defendants were (at the time of the ...
In a 4-3 majority decision by Associate Justice Stanley Mosk, the court decided to impose a new kind of liability, known as market share liability.The doctrine evolved from a line of negligence and strict products liability opinions (most of which had been decided by the Supreme Court of California) that were being adopted as the majority rule in many U.S. states.
The extent of liability in such cases is defined by the Title on Compensatory Relief. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The plain meaning of section 1714 was quite clear, but the court concluded that the California State Legislature had not meant to stop the evolution of the common law, which is quite normal in state tort law, but rather only to clarify the law that ...