Filter This View

  • July 23, 2012 | The Recorder

    As Trial Looms, Quinn, MoFo Lawyers Detail Fees in Apple-Samsung Spat

    New court filings in Apple Inc.'s patent suit against Samsung Electronics offer a peek at how much the combatants pay just some of their outside counsel. Needless to say, their lawyers aren't

    1 minute read

  • April 21, 2010 | The American Lawyer

    On Tuesday, the Litigation Daily wrote aboutCharles Schwab & Co.'s deal to pay $200 million to settle a big investor securities class action. We got that part of the story right--Schwab did indeed

    1 minute read

  • August 15, 2008 | New York Law Journal

    10 N.Y. Firms Listed as Best for Women

    Roughly half of the law students across the country presently involved in on-campus interviews have a personal stake in this question: Exactly which large firms are best for women?

    1 minute read

  • September 25, 2007 | The Recorder

    Diversity Viewpoints

    Hot Topic: Our ongoing Hot To

    1 minute read

  • Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes

    Publication Date: 2010-12-31
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2010-12-30
    Court: C.A. 3rd
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Daniel L. Brockett, John M. Pierce, and Daniel H. Bromberg, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    for defendant: Law Office of Peter E. Tracy and Peter E. Tracy; Morrison & Foerster, Edgar B. Washburn, Maria Chedid, Shaye Diveley, and Anton A. Ware, for Defendant and Appellant. Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Steven R. Meyers, Julia L. Bond, and Peter S. Hayes, for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
    Case Number: No. C059239

    Cite as 11 C.D.O.S. 56MAMMOTH LAKES LAND ACQUISITION, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TOWN OF MAMMOTH LAKES,

  • April 13, 2009 | The American Lawyer

    How Sweet It Is! Candymakers Granted Leave for Emergency Appeal in Price-Fixing Case

    You might think that executives of chocolate companies, powered by the lovely endorphins their product is said to inspire the brain to release, would eschew the sort of collusion and intrigue that's t

    1 minute read

  • People v Pearson

    Publication Date: 2009-11-24
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: Appellate Division, 1st Dept
    Judge:
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 1549

    Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Renwick, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. 1549 Ind. 2835/07 The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lonnie Pearson, Defenda

  • August 29, 2005 |

    Taking Stock of 'Grokster'

    [Editor's Note: The Internet industry has had a little time to sit back and examine the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Grokster case (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studio v. Grokster

    1 minute read

  • February 13, 2013 | Litigation Daily

    Orrick, Kirkland Aim to Revive Oracle Claims Against Google

    After its stinging defeat last year, Oracle Corp. is relying on heavy-hitting appellate lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

    1 minute read

  • In re Anonymous Online Speakers

    Publication Date: 2011-01-07
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2011-01-07
    Court: 9th Cir.
    Judge: Edward C. Reed, Senior District Judge, Presiding Before: Sidney R. Thomas, M. Margaret McKeown, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John P. Desmond (argued), Wayne O. Klomp, Jones Vargas, Reno, Nevada, for petitioner Anonymous Online Speakers.
    for defendant: Cedric C. Chao (argued), William L. Stern, Maria Chedid, and Somnath Raj Chatterjee, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, California, for real party in interest-cross-petitioner Quixtar Inc. James R. Sobieraj and James K. Cleland, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois, for real party in interest-cross-petitioner Quixtar Inc. John Frankovich and Miranda Du, McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, Reno, Nevada, for real party in interest-cross-petitioner Quixtar Inc.
    Case Number: No. 09-71265

    Cite as 11 C.D.O.S. 342In re: ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS, ANONYMOUS ONLINE SPEAKERS, Petitioner, v. p class