Search for: "PARTY X v. PARTY Y" Results 301 - 320 of 474
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2013, 8:01 am by Jason Shinn
Or consider what happens if the company is in the business of "X" when the noncompete agreement is entered into but later expands into "Y" and "Z" business? [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 2:56 am by Peter Mahler
Ergo, if plaintiff’s shares are currently worth “x”, but defendants’ improper actions caused the shares to lose “y” in value, the could would award plaintiff “x” plus “y”. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 8:34 pm by Bill Marler
After more news of the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to raw milk cheese, it reminded me of a post from 2001: After the recent E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to Bravo raw milk gouda cheese that sickened 38 (one with HUS), the New York Times is quickly becoming the go to newspaper for cheese lovers. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 7:17 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
The applicant typicallyelects a species (e.g., widget + X), focuses on prosecutingthe generic claims to the widget and any claims to thewidget + X species, and withdraws the claims to the nonelectedspecies, widget + Y and widget + Z. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 7:31 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said this case is a contested probate proceeding wherein the petitioner, A, the decedent’s second wife, moves for an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment admitting the proffered instrument dated 21 December 2005 to probate and dismissing the objections filed by three of the four of decedent's children from his first marriage, X, Y and Z. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm by SJM
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm by SJM
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 3:35 pm by SJM
Thirdly, it followed that the State had failed to protect B’s physical and psychological integrity and that there had been a violation of the positive duty under Article 8 (applying X & Y v Netherlands). [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 7:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Speech beyond “I will sell you X good at Y price” can be commercial, depending on the circumstances. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am by Benjamin Wittes
Over the past two-and-a-half years, we have published over a hundred posts on the NDAAs and related legal developments, including the Southern District of New York’s important decision in Hedges v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 4:01 pm
   Again, that the claims here are in category X or Y don't matter. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am by Schachtman
– Texarkana 1998) (noting that “[t]here is no requirement in a toxic tort case that a party must have reliable evidence of a relative risk of 2.0 or greater”) Allison v. [read post]
29 May 2013, 4:54 am by Susan Brenner
X–Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994). [read post]
9 May 2013, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
  The contract states:  “In order to promote the use of the LTS facility as a continuing Seminary, Roofer X shall put on a roof suitable for educational structures for which LTS will pay him $Y. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 1:40 pm by Schachtman
A Gedanken Experiment An expert witness writes a report that X, a drug therapy, causes Y, a benefit in survival, for a disease, Z. [read post]