Search for: "State of Delaware v. Fields."
Results 241 - 260
of 335
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2022, 1:07 pm
Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, et al. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 5:08 pm
The dust-up in Delaware over fee-shifting bylaws got started in May 2014, when the Delaware Supreme Court in the ATP Tours, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 10:48 am
Such jurisdictions include Delaware (the state of incorporation for a significant number of companies) and California (the home of many technology companies targeted by NPEs). [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 10:09 am
The following year, the court stated in McDonald v. [read post]
14 May 2015, 7:21 am
Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 2:29 pm
The chief justice says that Justice Neil Gorsuch has the opinion in United States v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 9:19 am
The Court filled out the field with ocho ocho ocho new relists. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 2:01 pm
Selections are made on an annual, state-by-state basis. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am
United States, 15-8629, and Beckles v. [read post]
25 Jul 2023, 1:43 am
However, the French Judge refers to a statement made by Judge Holland, which nuances this “binary” conclusion on the strict distinction between companies, stating that in certain hypotheses, the law of the State of Delaware (in which both BMS Pharma and BMS Company are incorporated) allows “the corporate veil to be lifted”, which results from an attestation, and is confirmed by Judge Chandler’s testimony. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 4:51 pm
Although the rule insulates the decision makers from ordinary negligence,[7] it can typically be overcome by a showing of gross negligence.[8] States may differ in whether the rule applies to both directors and officers (e.g., Delaware[9]), only to directors (e.g., Florida[10]), or only to “outside” directors (e.g., California[11]). [read post]
22 Dec 2011, 11:59 am
All this in a state – Illinois – where the highest court forbids FDCA-based common-law causes of action (see Martin v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 12:00 am
[v] More than 50 years later, the U.S. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 7:20 am
The problem is that the Supreme Court of the United States saw fit to condone this type of warrantless intrusion known as a sobriety check in the 1992 case of Michigan v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 2:28 am
In its latest decision on this topic, Amgen Inc. et al. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 6:05 am
Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 5:27 am
The text follows: The business judgment rule pervades every aspect of state corporate law, from director negligence to self-dealing transactions to dismissal of shareholder litigation and so on. [read post]
29 Nov 2008, 11:47 am
o SCOTUS docket hereBowie v. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 4:38 am
He said: "While all the patents in question derive from the same European patent applications, it is a consequence of the way in which European patent applications mature into domestic patents in the designated contracting states that enforcement has regrettably to be undertaken state by state. [read post]
15 May 2008, 8:07 pm
”[4] Recognizing that one size will not fit all, Delaware courts have declined to provide boards with the comfort of a “judicially prescribed checklist of sales activities. [read post]
