Search for: "General Products Corp"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 6,599
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2017, 3:37 pm
Actuate Corp., 275 F.R.D. 63 (D. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 5:37 pm
I am generally available to talk with you during office hours on Mondays and Wednesdays, or, otherwise, by appointment. [read post]
3 Aug 2017, 12:05 pm
Provident Bank, turning the traditional administrative vs. production dichotomy of the administrative exemption on its head. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 3:53 pm
’” He also quoted the Fifth Circuit’s opinion as stating “To interpret the computer-fraud provision as reaching any fraudulent scheme in which an email communication was part of the process would … convert the computer-fraud provision to one for general fraud. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 5:59 am
Int'l Multifoods Corp., 668 F.2d 1234, 212 USPQ 641, 642 (CCPA 1982). [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 20 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 12:34 pm
Acuity Specialty Products,” (Oct. 2015). 3 Carl F. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 9:56 am
Under the American Rule, prevailing parties generally cannot recover attorneys' fees without a statutory or contractual basis. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 8:03 am
But first, it concedes two points: (1) Texas law requires one to exercise its lien or power of sale within four years after an action accrues; and (2) generally, when a note or deed of trust contains an optional acceleration clause, the action accrues when the holder actually exercises its option to accelerate. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 9:30 pm
There is nothing wrong with this variation in state law, provided it is the product of each state’s earnest application of general contract principles. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 2:27 pm
That may well be “commercial speech” — speech promoting one’s own products or services to potential customers — and thus less constitutionally protected; the restrictions were upheld on those grounds by federal trial courts in Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 10:42 am
Conduct or a product cannot be a legal cause of harm unless that cause alone, or acting in concert with other causes, was enough to result in the injury. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 8:13 am
Kia Motors America Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 3:21 am
The TTAB affirmed a Section 2(e)(5) refusal to register the product configuration shown below, for "Wind turbines; Windpowered electricity generators," finding the design to be functional because "it is essential to the use or purpose of the product. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 12:05 pm
See generally GPNE Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 9:30 pm
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. [read post]
20 Jul 2017, 6:40 am
See, e.g., RCI TM Corp. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 6:59 pm
Murphy Oil USA, Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 3:32 pm
ANNE MILGRAM, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Live Gold Operations, Inc., Appellant, 650 F.3d 223; 99 U.S.P.Q.2D 1180 (CA3 2011), which was an en banc decision [Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY JR., VANASKIE, ALDISERT and ROTH, Circuit Judges. [read post]
15 Jul 2017, 7:47 am
In general, claimants in product liability lawsuits need to show: Plaintiff suffered actual injury/ loss as a result of using manufacturer/ defendant’s product; Defect or failure to warn; Plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the injury; Product was used as intended. [read post]
