Search for: "Comcast Holdings Corporation"
Results 81 - 100
of 165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2013, 2:51 pm
Behrend, No. 11-864, holds a special place in our heart. [read post]
2 May 2013, 2:51 pm
Costco Wholesale Corporation, 657 F.3d 970, 982-84 (9th Cir. 2011). [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Yet surprisingly, the second case—Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2013, 9:01 am
Behrend, in which the Court held that the plaintiff class of Comcast subscribers was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3), as the class’s proposed damages model could not show damages on a class-wide basis, is “already having major repercussions in several other cases alleging malfeasance by major corporations. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 11:00 pm
Comcast Corporation, 655 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2011) – In Behrend, the Court could decide whether a trial court must perform a full Daubert analysis of expert testimony offered in support of or in opposition to class certification. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 7:44 am
Ross, 12-165, seems like a hold for Comcast v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 3:27 pm
To top it off, Intel Corporation also chimed in with its own amicus brief. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 10:35 am
Comcast complied, then appealed this order in Comcast Corporation v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 8:11 am
Applicants include a number of well-known entities, both in the U.S. and overseas: American Broadcasting Corporation, Inc., applying for .ABC British Broadcasting Corporation, applying for .BBC BRS MEDIA, Inc. applying for .RADIO The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., applying for .CBN Comcast IP Holdings, LLC, applying for .COMCAST Dish DBS Corporation, applying for .BLOCKBUSTER, .DATA, .DIRECT, .DISH, .DOT, .DTV, .LATINO, .LOCKER, .MOBILE,… [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 5:36 pm
., the issue will be whether aliens may sue corporations in U.S. courts for such overseas abuses 11-626 — Lozman v. [read post]
20 Jul 2012, 5:00 am
Many thanks to the blog reader who pointed out that on June 25, in addition to granting cert. on limited issues in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm
In the closing days of its term, the Supreme Court announced that it had granted certiorari in Comcast Corporation v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 8:38 am
News Corporation elected to split the company’s holdings because they, “determined that creating this new structure would simplify operations and greater align strategic priorities. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 9:01 pm
This means that cable companies still hold de facto control over the market. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 4:21 pm
”The petition for review, Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Ellerth (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (7th Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition Reply of petitioner Supplemental brief of petitioner CVSG Information:Invited: February 21, 2012Filed: May 24, 2012 (Deny)… [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:47 am
Ellerth (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (7th Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition Reply of petitioner Supplemental brief of petitioner CVSG Information:Invited: February 21, 2012Filed: May 24, 2012 (Deny)… [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 9:20 am
The Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari in two closely-watched antitrust cases: a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action challenging a Georgia hospital combination, and a consumer class action against cable provider Comcast Corporation. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:01 am
Carter holds an MBA from the UCLA Anderson School of Management and a BA from the University of California, Berkeley. [read post]
17 May 2012, 7:55 am
Comcast Corporation v. [read post]
