Search for: "Lockheed Martin Corp. "
Results 261 - 280
of 296
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2008, 10:00 am
Larry Ellison, Oracle ($61 million)Ken Chenault, American Express ($50 million)Ray Irani, Occidental Petroleum ($33.6 million)Robert Iger, Disney ($27.6 million)Mark Hurd, Hewlett Packard ($26 million)Rupert Murdoch, News Corp. ($24 million)Robert Stevens, Lockheed Martin ($24 million)William Weldon, Johnson & Johnson ($21.79 million)Neville Isdell, Coca-Cola ($21.6 million)Sam Palmisano, IBM ($20.9 million)As the swallows return each year, one web site… [read post]
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]
