Jasmine Networks v. SEMICONDUCTOR
This text of 94 P.3d 475 (Jasmine Networks v. SEMICONDUCTOR) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
JASMINE NETWORKS
v.
MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR.
Supreme Court of California.
Julian William Mack, Buchalter Nemer et al., San Francisco, CA, David J. Rude, Clark & Rude LLP, San Jose, CA, for Defendants and Respondents.
James McManis, Jessica Irene Valenzuela Santamaria, McManis Faulkner & Morgan, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Review granted/briefing deferred (rule 29.1).
Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., S123808 (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 28.2(d)(2)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.1, is deferred pending further order of the court.
GEORGE, C.J., KENNARD, BAXTER, WERDEGAR, CHIN, and MORENO, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
94 P.3d 475, 16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 330, 2004 D.A.R. 8890, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 8890, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6536, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 6632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jasmine-networks-v-semiconductor-cal-2004.