California Trial Lawyers Journal, Volume 19California Trial Lawyers Association., 1981 - Law |
From inside the book
Results 1-3 of 30
Page 29
... statute would os- tensibly permit ? Or does this suggest that the court has some inherent power under C.C.P. ยง667.7 to order payment of the periodic award for an absurd period far greater than the life expectancy of the plaintiff ? Or ...
... statute would os- tensibly permit ? Or does this suggest that the court has some inherent power under C.C.P. ยง667.7 to order payment of the periodic award for an absurd period far greater than the life expectancy of the plaintiff ? Or ...
Page 109
... statute of limitation purposes at the same time it accrues in the primary action . The court further held that the fact that the original plaintiff's action against an additional defendant may be barred by the statute of limitations ...
... statute of limitation purposes at the same time it accrues in the primary action . The court further held that the fact that the original plaintiff's action against an additional defendant may be barred by the statute of limitations ...
Page 111
... statute of " repose " as distinguished from a statute of " limitation " applicable to both primary and indemnity actions . Although historically there has been no distinction between the two statutes , the prevailing view today is that a ...
... statute of " repose " as distinguished from a statute of " limitation " applicable to both primary and indemnity actions . Although historically there has been no distinction between the two statutes , the prevailing view today is that a ...
Contents
Arne Werchick Esq San Francisco | 9 |
Is the Danger Excessive | 33 |
The Trial of a Medical Malpractice Case | 63 |
5 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accident attorney award Barker barred benefit plan breast cancer Cal.Rptr California Supreme Court cause Civil Procedure claims Code of Civil compensation consumer cost counsel CTLA curling iron defendant defendant's deposition design defect determine developer doctor employee ERISA established evaluation Evidence Code expert witness filed foreseeable future damages Hahn hazards hospital hypothetical question indemnity action independent contractor injured worker instructions involved issue judgment jurors jury Labor Code Section legislative Liptak litigation lump manufacturer medical expert medical malpractice medical records motion negligence opinion pain party patient periodic payments physician plaintiff premises presented prior Products Liability reasonable res ipsa result risk Rptr rule safety engineering San Francisco special employer special employment standard statute of limitations statute of repose strict liability subcontractor substantially completed Superior Court supra testify testimony tion tort trial court Trial Lawyers trier of fact utilized verdict victim voir dire Warning