Search for: "T A V Holdings Inc"
Results 2301 - 2320
of 12,086
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2020, 5:29 pm
Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 2:47 pm
That'd be an awesome set of facts for plaintiff.Which is precisely what the majority opinion here holds (albeit in less excruciating detail than I've just articulated above). [read post]
14 May 2020, 8:43 am
Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:42 am
Newman Cigar Company v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 2:03 am
Rhodia, Inc., 606 F.3d 975, 980 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Marmo v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
Chief Judge Lisa Benner holds a Zoom meeting with Judge Lola Carmichael and other judges who appear from time to time on the show. [read post]
11 May 2020, 11:34 am
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. [read post]
11 May 2020, 10:57 am
P’ship, 295 S.W.3d at 652 (holding that “plaintiff must prove compensable injury and secure an enforceable judgment in the form of damages or equitable relief”)); see also Rohrmoos, 578 S.W.3d at 486 (holding “defendant can obtain actual and meaningful relief, materially altering the parties’ legal relationship, by successfu [read post]
11 May 2020, 3:19 am
It is not for the court to force closure of newer businesses simply because its principals don’t agree particularly, where, as here, there is an operating agreement that governs. [read post]
11 May 2020, 1:09 am
Despite Supreme Court holdings, a substantially revised and amended Rule 702, and clear direction from the Advisory Committee, some lower courts have actively resisted enforcing the requirements of Rule. 702 Part of this resistance consists in pushing the assessment of the reliability of the data and assumptions used in applying a given methodology out of the gatekeeping column and into the jury’s column. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:47 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [2] Frye v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:02 am
Pirani v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 12:24 pm
Oracle America, Inc., Babb v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 11:00 am
Lets explore how the 9th Circuit addressed the use of trademarks in expressive works in VIP Products v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 8:02 am
Merricks v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 3:41 am
American Association of Political Consultants Inc. [read post]
6 May 2020, 9:12 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 May 2020, 3:46 am
Embarcadero Techs., Inc. v. [read post]
