Search for: "Party X v. Party Y"
Results 61 - 80
of 456
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2018, 2:37 pm
Say it actually is founded on X. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 11:52 am
If some evidence says X and some says Y, we let a jury decide. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 8:01 am
Or consider what happens if the company is in the business of "X" when the noncompete agreement is entered into but later expands into "Y" and "Z" business? [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 9:18 am
App'x 465, 464 (5th Cir. 2004), we recognized that when "waiver . . . depends on the conduct of the parties before the district court," "the court, not the arbitrator, is in the best position to decide whether the conduct amounts to a waiver under applicable law. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 4:02 am
In ordering their extraction, DJ Evans acknowledged the impact on the children: “The worst case presented to me is that Z would be put up for adoption and X and Y would be fostered, but that might not necessarily mean keeping them together . . . [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
As Eady J said in X & Y v Persons Unknown[2006] EWHC 2783 (QB), [2007] EMLR 290 at para 72: “…the Spycatcher doctrine [Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc [1988] Ch 333 at 375, 380] would go on inhibiting third parties from publishing the relevant information notionally pending a trial which would never actually take place. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 11:54 am
There, Arnt was charged with murder (X, the greater offense) as well as voluntary manslaughter (Y, the lesser offense) and, as here, the jury acquitted on X but convicted on Y. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 4:03 pm
The imported item is usually X or Y and there is no middle on which to settle. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 10:28 am
By defining this as a browsewrap, the Eighth Circuit’s definition seems to reach all calls-to-action that say “by doing X, you agree to Y” and implies that the action of “doing X” turns the call-to-action into a “browsewrap. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 4:58 am
Further, the Court overruled the decision in Company X v Company Y, by which the Commercial Court felt bound, noting that it doubted most people incorporating the clause were aware of that decision. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 8:18 am
Typical political claims (e.g., “candidate X is a big-spending liberal” or “candidate Y doesn’t care about our kids as he has voted against school funding increases”) are less likely to be actionable than are claims about the character, integrity, and similar personal qualities of a candidate (e.g., a claim that a candidate did something illegal). [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 11:12 am
More typically, Y tries to take advantage of X's negative behavioral covenants by claiming to be a third party beneficiary of the Z-X contract, but those arguments rarely work, and the plaintiffs don't try them here. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 2:53 am
’ “On May 27, 2008, the court held a telephone conference to read Juror X’s letter to the parties. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 7:17 am
The applicant typicallyelects a species (e.g., widget + X), focuses on prosecutingthe generic claims to the widget and any claims to thewidget + X species, and withdraws the claims to the nonelectedspecies, widget + Y and widget + Z. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 1:20 pm
Or maybe, in (B), Doug's Widgets sells the widgets to X, Y, and Z on credit, but then Doug's goes bankrupt.If there's legally an agreement, then presumably in (A), I can sue eBay for screwing up the sale, and in (B), Acme Manufacturing can sue X, Y, and Z for the purchase price of the widgets, right? [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 1:19 pm
Plaintiff sues because the defendant allegedly caused a third party to "break up" with her. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 11:40 am
Since the "corporation" is the nominal party in a derivative suit, Judge Callahan says, it's the "same" party. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 12:31 am
The reason is that the EPO interprets, for the purposes of assessing novelty, a claim that states "X obtained by process Y" as a claim to X as such, and will consider such a claim as lacking novelty if X as such is not new. [read post]
18 Jun 2008, 3:37 pm
Thus, parties often ask the judge to determine whether or not claimed element “X” should be interpreted to cover “Y” - where Y is an element of the accused product. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 10:02 am
The Comment to this section of the Code further clarifies: If an instrument is payable to X and Y, neither X nor Y acting alone is the person to whom the instrument is payable. [read post]
