Search for: "Lockheed Martin Corp"
Results 261 - 280
of 295
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2008, 9:03 am
Lockheed Martin Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville 08a0154n.062008/03/18 USA v. [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 1:23 am
Lockheed Martin Corp., 417 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2005). [read post]
14 Jan 2008, 1:23 am
Lockheed Martin Corp., 417 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2005). [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 2:10 pm
It was heartening to read in the January 3, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal, that Lockheed Martin Corp. settled a race discrimination claim for 2.5 million dollars. [read post]
20 Dec 2007, 9:41 am
Lockheed Martin is scheduled to make its [...] [read post]
19 Nov 2007, 10:02 pm
The United States has joined a whistleblower lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Corp. for its alleged involvement in one of Lockheed’s vendors price gouging against the government. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 10:07 am
Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1134 (2003), did not preclude an award of restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to plaintiff by defendant Microsoft even though plaintiff paid a retailer, not Microsoft, for the product. [read post]
9 Nov 2007, 6:00 am
Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1148) and they should not be sufficient to confer standing. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 5:02 am
Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1149]: ‘Any award that plaintiff would recover from defendants would not be restitutionary as it would not replace any money or property that defendants took directly from plaintiff. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 2:04 am
By Larry Wescott Lockheed Martin Corp. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 6:00 am
Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1148 (Korea Supply Co.); Kraus v. [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 10:00 am
(Lockheed Martin Corp. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 6:00 am
Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1149 (Korea Supply), the Supreme Court concluded that "restitutionary disgorgement" is available under the UCL. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 4:50 am
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 27, 2007In Re: Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 06-1344In case involving insurance coverage dispute and the right to a jury trial in an admiralty case, petition for writ of mandamus challenging order striking petitioner's request for a jury trial after it asserted compulsory counterclaims is granted as the Seventh Amendment was implicated here and petitioner was entitled to a jury trial. [read post]
29 Sep 2007, 7:25 pm
Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 5:12 am
In Re: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP, Lockheed was denied a jury trial on Lockheed's counterclaim seeking money damages in an admiralty case. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 6:00 am
Lockheed Martin Corp., 131 Cal. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 6:00 am
Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal.4th 1132, 1149 (2003) (emphasis added). [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 5:46 pm
And the California Supreme Court has stood quite firm in rejecting class actions in personal injury cases (See: Lockheed Martin Corp. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 7:38 am
The program will also address other aspects of research, including the business, legal, political, and social aspects of research.Members of NINE include: Intel Corp., Exxon Mobil, IBM, Lockheed Martin, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, University of Wisconsin, Rice University, Yale University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and several more companies and universities.More information on NINE can be found here. [read post]
