Search for: "General Mills, Inc. v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 230
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Nov 2010, 9:44 am by Wendy McGuire Coats
Right at the start of the discussion on Section 5, Judge Bea identified Arizona’s problem:  Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 7:05 am by Antitrust Today
United States Potato Growers of Idaho Inc., et al., No. 10-CV-307-BLW) and the Northern District of California (Marvilla v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:30 am by Kelly
United States (Patently-O) CAFC finds claim construction arguments waived on appeal: Enovsys LLC v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
Mills ruled that NYCTA had not established that it was "engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles": At issue here, however, is 49 USC § 30106. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am by Steven M. Taber
– Trading Markets.com, July 21, 2010 Consistent with Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 16, 2010, the United States lodged a Consent Decree with 163 defendants (each of which is identified in the proposed Decree) in United States of America v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am by Steven M. Taber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am by smtaber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
18 May 2010, 1:10 am
(IPblog)   US General – Decisions District Court E D Wisconsin: Can a trade secret licensee state a claim? [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm by admin
Smith Distributing Company, Inc. entered into an agreement with the U.S. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:17 pm by admin
This Settlement Agreement proposes to compromise a claim the United States has at this Site for Past Response Costs, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement. [read post]