Search for: "American Honda Motor Co Inc"
Results 141 - 160
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2020, 12:50 pm
In Honda Motor Co v Oberg (512 U.S. 415 (1994)), for instance, Ginsburg dissented from the Court’s decision that an amendment to the Oregon Constitution that prevented review of a punitive-damage award violated the Due Process Clause of the federal Constitution, referring to other protections against excessive punitive-damage awards in Oregon law. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), which PLAC not only briefed, but helped organize (defense counsel was simultaneously on PLAC’s case selection committee). [read post]
10 Apr 2008, 9:45 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), came down, we were relieved and grateful. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 2:54 pm
He has litigated cases against Intel Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Honda North America, Inc., Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc., BMW of North America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Keyes European, LLC, Rusnak Enterprises, LLC and Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. [read post]
21 May 2015, 1:09 pm
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), which held that an “action was barred because it directly conflicted with the agency’s policy choice to encourage flexibility to foster innovation. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
Medtronic, Inc. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 12:56 pm
This means that each co-defendant in a tort case is liable for no more than his respective percentage of fault. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm
Northshore University Healthsystem, and earlier in American Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:58 am
The panelists also noted that the Supreme Court left open the question of whether a Daubert analysis is appropriate at the class certification stage, while hinting that it is based on American Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 5:58 am
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), contained a throwaway line “[N]o class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing,” citing a Second Circuit case but then immediately citing Stearns and not explaining the contradiction, and then setting a low bar for standing: as the court here summarized, “[s]imply spending money on something that doesn’t do what it claims to do is all the… [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 7:31 pm
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869 (2000), and applied that principle in our neck of the woods in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am
Virginia viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and upholding the maximum amount a rational jury could award on the record so viewed (measured by the relevant legal guideposts), based on Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 5:54 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 873 (2000).Preemption is not limited to displacing state statutes. [read post]
19 May 2010, 4:47 am
I recently posted about the7th Circuit decision in American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. [read post]
4 May 2011, 11:13 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 4:07 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:00 am
(BLOG@IP::JUR) CAFC Judge Rader: ‘Stronger IP system allows countries to compete in world marketplace’ (PatentlyBIOtech) Professor Mossoff’s historical paper about patent thickets, patent trolls and patent pools: relevant today (IP Dragon) The balance between standards and patent regulation (IP Frontline) Patents in a bear market (IP Solutions) Australia Full Federal Court: Commonsense approach to trade mark use and the beer/wine dichotomy confirmed:… [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Securing Innovation) PriorSmart.com search tool, tracking patent documents (Competitive Info) (Patently-O) Patent damages as an incentive to transact (IP finance) IPscore, new patent evaluation toy (IP finance) Patent portfolios can pull companies out of financial rut (Law360) Global - Copyright Expanding the public domain: part zero (Creative Commons) Australia Pioneering decision on non-use: Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK (Australian Trade… [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 2:09 pm
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (2000) 529 U.S. 861, 868, 120 S.Ct. 1913, 146 L.Ed.2d 914) (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) “[A] reading of the express pre-emption provision that excludes common-law tort actions gives actual meaning to the saving clause's literal language, while leaving adequate room for state tort law to operate-for example, where federal law creates only a floor, i.e., a minimum safety standard. [read post]
