Search for: "Volvo Cars of North America, LLC"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2018, 6:55 pm
Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al., the court relied on the notion of common sense (and basic contract formation principles) to cudgel Volvo’s and other automakers’ attempts to moot consumer class actions through the trend of “picking off” plaintiffs. [read post]
3 May 2016, 4:01 pm
According to a recent consumer class action lawsuit against Volvo Cars of North America LLC, the car company claimed that its new XC90 T8 could drive up to 25 miles on a full electric charge, but Xavier Laurens argues that is not actually the case. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 11:00 am
Recently, Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, announced a recall of approximately 8, 406 of its S80 passenger vehicles from model year 2007 due to a steering defect. [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 6:00 am
Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, E.D. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 12:25 pm
Rajmohan Shetty filed suit in New York County Supreme Court against Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (a New Jersey corporation), and Long Island Auto Group (a Nassau County car dealership), seeking accident related damages. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 12:47 pm
Manufacturer Name Number of Cars Chrysler Group LLC 117 General Motors Company 116 BMW of North America, LLC 62 Hyundai Motor America 45 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. 40 Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc. 32 Ford Motor Company 22 American Honda Motor Company 15 Nissan Motor Corporation U.S.A. 10 Volkswagen/Audi Of America, Inc. 8 Volvo Cars Of North America 7 Kia Motors… [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 11:44 am
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al – United States District Court – District of New Jersey – April 3rd, 2017) is a putative class action involving the sunroofs of certain cars that were sold to customers by the defendants (Volvo). [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 11:44 am
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC et al – United States District Court – District of New Jersey – April 3rd, 2017) is a putative class action involving the sunroofs of certain cars that were sold to customers by the defendants (Volvo). [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 4:59 pm
Porsche AG of Germany Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia Saab Automobile AB of Sweden Saab Cars North America, Inc. of Royal Oak, Michigan Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan American Suzuki Motor Corporation of Brea, California Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey Jaguar Cars Limited of the United Kingdom Land Rover of the United Kingdom Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan… [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 3:59 pm
Porsche AG of Germany Porsche Cars North America, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia Saab Automobile AB of Sweden Saab Cars North America, Inc. of Royal Oak, Michigan Suzuki Motor Corporation of Japan American Suzuki Motor Corporation of Brea, California Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC of Mahwah, New Jersey Jaguar Cars Limited of the United Kingdom Land Rover of the United Kingdom Toyota Motor Corporation of Japan… [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 12:57 am
Notice the plants in the South where unions aren't that prominent don't have the same issues as the ones up North? [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 1:13 pm
The Alliance represents 77% of all car and light truck sales in the United States, including the BMW Group, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota, Volkswagen Group of America and Volvo Cars North America. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 5:46 pm
With the exception of Hayes Lemmerz Finance LLC - Luxembourg S.C.A. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
Medico (Filewrapper) BPAI finds claim indefinite and not directed to patentable subject under Bilski: Ex parte Hemmat (GRAY On Claims) District Court N D Illinois: KSR obviousness does not require prior art from the same field: Se-Kure Controls, Inc v Diam USA, Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) District Court E D Texas finds plaintiff has standing; agreement transfers ownership and simultaneously a conditional purchase by transferor from transferee: Balsam Coffee Solutions Inc v Folgers… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:25 am
Medico (Filewrapper) BPAI finds claim indefinite and not directed to patentable subject under Bilski: Ex parte Hemmat (GRAY On Claims) District Court N D Illinois: KSR obviousness does not require prior art from the same field: Se-Kure Controls, Inc v Diam USA, Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) District Court E D Texas finds plaintiff has standing; agreement transfers ownership and simultaneously a conditional purchase by transferor from transferee: Balsam Coffee Solutions Inc v Folgers… [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 6:25 am
Medico (Filewrapper) BPAI finds claim indefinite and not directed to patentable subject under Bilski: Ex parte Hemmat (GRAY On Claims) District Court N D Illinois: KSR obviousness does not require prior art from the same field: Se-Kure Controls, Inc v Diam USA, Inc (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) District Court E D Texas finds plaintiff has standing; agreement transfers ownership and simultaneously a conditional purchase by transferor from transferee: Balsam Coffee Solutions Inc v Folgers… [read post]
