Search for: "Challenger One Holdings, LLC"
Results 221 - 240
of 3,200
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2013, 3:22 am
Schodack Exit Ten, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04083 (3d Dept June 6, 2013), illustrates the potential for litigation even when, as the court ultimately found in that case, the agreement’s language unambiguously authorized the challenged management decision without requiring unanimous member consent as contended by the dissenting member. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 6:36 pm
Six Star Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 5:21 pm
Despite the Board's position, one key decision that could be washed away is the Board's holding in D.R. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 1:41 pm
Supreme Court issued a 6-2 opinion in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 2:55 pm
Check the NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 12:00 pm
& Amazon.com, LLC, et al., holding that New York’s “click-through nexus” statute does not violate the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. [read post]
5 Apr 2020, 12:31 pm
In Verizon Pennsylvania LLC v. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 6:37 am
Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 1:29 pm
Exactly ninety days later (following February 12), the Energy Companies filed suit challenging the Secretary's authority to withdraw the leases. [read post]
17 Oct 2022, 1:40 pm
Specifically, the practice asserted that the error was a big one: the parties actually intended for the subscriber to obtain membership in an entirely different entity. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 3:12 am
Holdings, LLC, No. 12 C 9881, Slip Op. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 4:44 am
Defendant does not challenge this transaction. [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:25 am
Last fall, in Ultramercial, LLC v. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 8:22 am
” Bluewater Logistics, LLC v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 2:03 am
General Motors, LLC, No. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 2:12 am
by Dennis Crouch As part of a litigation settlement agreement, GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) granted an exclusive generic marketing license to the challenger Teva for sales of lamotrigine and also agreed not to introduce its own competitive ‘authorized generic’ version. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
L’Object, LLC v. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 12:23 pm
§ 102(e), one must prove that the prior art patent is actually entitled to the benefit of priority, in addition to showing that the provisional application anticipates the patent being challenged. [read post]
17 Nov 2020, 1:59 pm
SFM LLC, Docket No. 2019-1526) [read post]
27 Aug 2016, 4:03 am
Copyright © 2007-2016 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. [read post]
