Xxxxxxxxx v. Lion Oil Company, Circuit Court of Union County, Arkansas, Case No. CIV-2001-213. Schedule II Environmental Matters
Xxxxxxxxx v. A., A. K. Xxxxxxxxxx, et al. (1975). Variation in radiocarbon content in the annual rings of sequoia (1890-1916). Geokhimiya 5: 667-675. Xxxx, X. X. (1963). Final report on the type mapping and regeneration studies in the giant sequoia xxxxxx of Kings Canyon and Sequoia National Parks. Xxxxx, X. X. and X. X. Xxxxxxx (1974). A controlled method of comparative study for Taxodiaceous leaf cuticles. Botanical Journal of the Linnaeus Society 69(4): 277-286. American, A. o. S. P. (1973). Field guidebook for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks; the national history, ecology and management of the giant sequoias. Compiled by Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxxx.
Xxxxxxxxx v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 307, 248 Cal. Rptr. 352; see also Hayward Area Planning Association v. City of Hayward (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 176, 184, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 783; X.X.
Xxxxxxxxx v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2012 ONCA 445 at para. 132; Microcell Communications Inc. x. Xxxx, 2011 SKCA 136 at para. 48-50, leave to appeal refused, [2012] S.C.C.A. No. 42; 197; Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. v. Wuttunee, 2009 SKCA 43, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 512; Xxxxxx v. British Columbia, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184 at para. 29. 90 [2001] 3 S.C.R. 184 at para. 29. 91 Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell’Xxxxxxx, 2014 SCC 1 at paras. 44–46. 92 203874 Ontario Ltd. v. Quiznos Canada Restaurant Corp., [2009] O.J. No. 1874 (Div. Ct.), aff’d [2010] O.J. No. 2683 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 348; Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 at para. 52 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. ref'd, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 50, rev'g (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 492 (Div. Ct.); Carom v. Bre-X Minerals Ltd. (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 236 at para. 42 (C.A.). 93 Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), leave to appeal to the S.C.C. ref'd, [2005] S.C.C.A. No. 50, rev'g (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 492 (Div. Ct.). preclude a finding of commonality.94A common issue need not dispose of the litigation; it is sufficient if it is an issue of fact or law common to all claims and its resolution will advance the litigation.95 [218] In the context of the common issue criterion, the some-basis-in- fact standard involves a two-step requirement that: (a) the proposed common issue actually exists; and (b) the proposed issue can be answered in common across the entire class. [219] Where questions relating to causation or damages are proposed as common issues, the plaintiff must demonstrate with supporting evidence that there is a workable methodology for determining such issues on a class-wide basis.96 Here the law about commonality is subtle and complex because common question can exist even if the answer given to the question might vary from one member of the class to another. I described this phenomenon in Shah v. LG Chem, Ltd.,97 (a price-fixing case about lithium batteries) at paragraphs 64 and 65 as follows:
Xxxxxxxxx v. P. ------------------------------- GS CAPITAL PARTNERS II OFFSHORE, L.P. BY: GS Advisors II (Cayman), L.P. Its General Partner BY: GS Advisors II, Inc. Its General Partner
Xxxxxxxxx v. P. ------------------------------- SIGNATURE PAGE TO CARDIMA, INC. FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS AGREEMENT The foregoing Fourth Amended and Restated Stockholders' Rights Agreement is hereby executed as of the date first above written.
Xxxxxxxxx v. Sunset Pools of St. Louis, Inc.,
Xxxxxxxxx v. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMPANY (CASE NO. 00069730E). Plaintiff brought suit in the 23rd Judicial District Court in the Parish of Ascension. Plaintiff is a former employee alleging wrongful termination and is suing for backpay, benefits, and equitable damages. Defendants are drafting a motion for summary judgment.
Xxxxxxxxx v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 307, 248 Cal. Rptr. 352; see also Hayward Area Planning Association v. City of Hayward (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 176, 184, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 783; X.X. Xxxxxxx, Xx. v. City of San Diego (1976) 55 Cal. App. 3d 380, 127 Cal. Rptr. 587. Contractually, the Development Agreement is clear as to the role of the City and the role of CCDC. It is clear that CCDC is responsible for performing the consistency determination, but it is also clear by the contract terms that the City retained its CEQA responsibilities.
Xxxxxxxxx v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:17-cv-266 (E.D.N.C.)
