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 2,008

Statements of intent to condemn do not give rise to inverse condemnation claim
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

The Second Appellate District recently held that public statements and other actions indicating an intent to condemn must clearly meet the criteria set out in the landmark California Supreme Court decision Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 (Klopping) in order for inverse condemnation liability to arise


TILA does not require a loan servicer to identify who owns a loan, unless the servicer owns the loan by assignment
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 16 2012

In Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services, 686 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held that a borrower has no right under the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to require a loan servicer to identify the owner of a loan obligation


California appellate court upholds stipulated injunction prohibiting solicitation of customers and rejects after-the-fact effort to show that customer nonsolicit violated California's ban on noncompetes
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • October 15 2012

On October 4, 2012, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a stipulated injunction which the trial court had concluded was an unlawful business restraint in violation of the law barring non-competition agreements, California Business & Professions Code section 16600


State cancellation of redevelopment agencies may affect you!
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 5 2012

On December 29, 2011, legislation to dissolve all redevelopment agencies became effective when the California Supreme Court released its opinion in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, challenging the Legislature's adoption of AB 1X 26, providing for elimination of California redevelopment agencies (RDAs), and AB 1X 27, exempting from elimination any RDA that makes a voluntary contribution of its revenues


Enforcement of California low-carbon fuel standard blocked
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

California's effort to reduce the carbon footprint of producers and refiners of fuel has hit a snag


Louis Vuitton sets a new standard in federal trademark and copyright law
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 17 2012

In the recent landmark case of Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a web-hosting company that owned and operated servers was liable for contributory copyright and trademark infringement when it failed to take steps to curtail alleged infringement committed by Chinese websites that used its servers


Court of Appeal rules that denial of a landowner's application to develop property can be a compensable regulatory taking
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

The Fourth Appellate District recently held that a local agency's denial of an application to develop a 2.85 acre parcel in the middle of a developed residential area can constitute a compensable regulatory taking under the Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104 case


CEQA does not require identification of significant effects of the environment (sea level rise) on a project; assertion of new claims barred in EIR required to be revised by judgment in a prior case
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 6 2012

The Second Appellate District recently held that CEQA does not require identification of significant effects of the environment on a project, only significant effects of a project on the environment


California appellate court issues a decision that mutual of Omaha insurance agents qualify as independent contractors as a matter of law
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • January 2 2012

On December 31, 2011, as a final act for the year, the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a good appellate decision for employers on the issue of independent contractor status, Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha


Federal Circuit avoids central joint infringement question and articulates new standard for inducement
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2012

On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a seminal, split decision articulating a new standard for induced infringement