Search for: "Central Holding Corp."
Results 61 - 80
of 1,488
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
“We intend to hold Sodexo and the supplier of the tainted meat responsible for the devastating injuries caused to Mr. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 10:50 am
While the full scope and meaning of the Court’s holding is subject to interpretation by the lower courts, a central holding is that a district court errs if it certifies a class for purposes of liability and damages where the plaintiff lacks collective proof capable of calculating damages to the class consistent with Plaintiff’s theory of liability. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:41 am
The court’s opinion self-identifies as a “straightforward application of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Alice Corp. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 3:50 pm
Although a beneficiary is central to the trust relationship, the wide variation in beneficiaries’ interests counsels against adopting such a categorical rule. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 7:33 am
The March session features two cases of much more central importance to the patent process. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 1:00 pm
Corp. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 3:50 am
Universal Foods Corp., 209 USPQ 40, 43 (CCPA 1981), which holds that a plaintiff "must prove he has proprietary rights in the term he relies upon to demonstrate likelihood of confusion. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 9:46 pm
The Supreme Court decision was almost immediately cited by an Australian Patent Hearing Officer, who found that a claimed method for commercialising inventions does not constitute patentable subject matter under the Australian ‘manner of manufacture’ test: Invention Pathways Pty Ltd [2010] APO 10.The Invention Pathways decision resulted in an official change to Australian Patent Office practice whereby a claimed invention, to be patent-eligible, would not only need to involve a… [read post]
18 May 2015, 9:23 am
NCR Corp.) that a portion of the liability was not divisible. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 1:10 pm
Setting aside the reality that Egan posed the rather narrow question whether a naval employee denied a security clearance had a statutory right to review of the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Court’s central rationale for ruling against a right of review was the importance in the security context of respecting expert agency discretion. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 1:10 pm
Setting aside the reality that Egan posed the rather narrow question whether a naval employee denied a security clearance had a statutory right to review of the decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Court’s central rationale for ruling against a right of review was the importance in the security context of respecting expert agency discretion. [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:40 am
(In re SNTL Corp.), 571 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2009) (SNTL Corp.), Judge Bluebond overruled Debtor’s Claim Objection in part, holding that “after making an 1111(b) election, an undersecured creditor may include in its 1111(b) secured claim post-petition attorneys’ fees, but not post-petition interest. [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:40 am
(In re SNTL Corp.), 571 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2009) (SNTL Corp.), Judge Bluebond overruled Debtor’s Claim Objection in part, holding that “after making an 1111(b) election, an undersecured creditor may include in its 1111(b) secured claim post-petition attorneys’ fees, but not post-petition interest. [read post]
28 May 2013, 1:40 am
(In re SNTL Corp.), 571 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2009) (SNTL Corp.), Judge Bluebond overruled Debtor’s Claim Objection in part, holding that “after making an 1111(b) election, an undersecured creditor may include in its 1111(b) secured claim post-petition attorneys’ fees, but not post-petition interest. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 4:52 am
Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958 (BLM) (S.D. [read post]
25 Jan 2008, 2:34 am
Broadcom Corp., Case No. 05cv1958 (BLM) (S.D. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 1:37 pm
District Court for the Central District of California. [read post]
30 May 2013, 3:24 pm
,Dish Network Corp. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 2:24 pm
The Ninth Circuit ultimately agreed with the landowner, holding that the Corps did not have jurisdiction and that no 404 permit was necessary. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 11:50 am
McDonald's Corp. [read post]
