Search results
18 lip 2005 · California (or its representative) “fails to service or repair the good to conform to its express warranty, even in cases when the particular good was purchased out of state.”
The operative complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages and overtime (§ 1194); failure to provide meal and rest breaks (§ 226.7); failure to provide accurate wage statements (§ 226, subd. (a)); waiting time penalties (§ 203); and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).
The complaint in this matter alleged the following facts. Cummins Corp., a California corporation formerly known as Valley Asbestos Company, installed asbestos containing products in California, and had received hundreds of asbestos bodily injury claims, including many lawsuits, based on exposure to its asbestos containing materials.
18 lip 2005 · The question presented in this case is whether a buyer who resides in California may bring suit against a manufacturer under the Act when the buyer purchased the vehicle in another state, but brought the vehicle for repair to the manufacturer’s authorized repair facility in California, and repeated attempts to repair the vehicle proved ...
The evidence against Cummins was strong. He was found in the stolen car and implicated by three witnesses, Taglieri, Cala, and Parks. Of significance, Parks, Cummins own witness, testified Cummins threatened to shoot Taglieri if he did not let go of the drain pipe after he was pushed off the cliff.
18 lip 2005 · United States State Supreme Court (California) Parties: CUMMINS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Riverside County, Respondent; Edward D. Cox et al., Real Parties in Interest.
This case concerns the claim- and issue-preclusive significance, in future litigation, of a conclusion relied on by the trial court and challenged on appeal, but not addressed by the appellate court.
