We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 380

"Prevailing party" status not necessary for an ERISA attorneys' fees award
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 26 2010

In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the United States Supreme Court has declared that an ERISA claimant need not be a “prevailing party” to be eligible for an attorneys’ fees award


California Court of Appeal again finds no stacking of liability policy limits
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2013

Nearly two years ago, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued a decision that upheld the concept of horizontal


Reconsidering the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • January 25 2013

The California Supreme Court has removed a legal barrier for litigants seeking to invalidate contracts on the basis of fraud. Overruling a 75-year


EEOC to proceed with class action disability discrimination case against UPS
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • January 17 2013

In a ruling that could negatively impact employers, an Illinois federal judge has allowed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") to


HP Inkjet Printer Litigation: fee award fails to comply with provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 28 2013

In In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 2013 DJDAR 6149 (2013) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the approval of an attorney's fee award


Attorney fees not available in mixed motive retaliation claims under Title VII, Seventh Circuit rules
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2013

Under Title VII, in "mixed motive" discrimination cases (i.e., discrimination motivated in part, but not entirely, by an impermissible factor), an


Liability insurers may have duty to defend against federal prosecutions, California Court of Appeal holds
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 6 2013

The Second Appellate District of California held on May 1 in Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez that California Insurance Code section 533.5(b) does not


Sanctions are issued where court determines that special motion to strike was filed for improper purpose
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 14 2013

In Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky LLP, 2013 DAR 4961(2013) the California Courts of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed the denial of a


Last minute amendment by counsel to augment fee claim rejected by court
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • May 15 2013

In Duchrow v. Forrest, 2013 DJAR 5534 (2013) the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District decided a unique fee claim arising in a


One-sided employment arbitration agreement unconscionable, Court of Appeal rules
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • USA
  • April 1 2013

In Compton v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, ruled that an arbitration agreement that the employer required an