Search for: "Sellers v. State"
Results 3641 - 3660
of 3,989
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Feb 2009, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 11:11 am
(see our blog post here) and Smith v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 7:02 am
Harrison v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 6:52 am
Bona v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Details emerge of secret ACTA negotiation: privacy, P2P major targets (KEI) (Michael Geist) (Excess Copyright) (Techdirt) (Ars Technica) New Zealand three strikes law comes into effect after 28 February (Ars Technica) (ZDNet) (Techdirt) Global Global - General Job security and data security (ZDNet) Global - Copyright… [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 8:47 am
McLaughlin v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 5:03 pm
But many states operate under statutory schemes, or common law schemes bounded by statute, that limit full application of strict liability to manufacturers.12 For example, the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) applies strict liability to manufacturers but leaves non-manufacturing sellers liable only for negligence.13 Other states employ “pass through” statutes that limit the liability of sellers who do not exercise control over a product,… [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 6:50 am
The North Carolina State Bar weighed in with an amicus brief on behalf of the seller, which was countered by an amicus brief by the North Carolina Land Title Association for the buyer. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 3:00 pm
Next week, the New York Court of Appeals will hear oral argument in Jaramillo v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 9:00 am
” The opinion contained little direct reasoning, relying mostly on Freudenberg v. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 6:33 pm
But many states operate under statutory schemes, or common law schemes bounded by statute, that limit full application of strict liability to manufacturers.12 For example, the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA) applies strict liability to manufacturers but leaves non-manufacturing sellers liable only for negligence.13 Other states employ “pass through” statutes that limit the liability of sellers who do not exercise control over a product,… [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:58 am
Like many of these cases, the Deutsche Alt-A case was originally filed in state court, and removed by defendants to federal court. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 10:27 am
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in the recent case of Patel v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 4:00 am
(IP Think Tank) Whitehouse.gov’s 3rd party content under CC-BY (Creative Commons) EFF’s site FreeYourPhone.org launches, pushes for new DMCA exemption (Ars Technica) Corporation of Public Broadcasting agrees on internet royalty payments (ContentAgenda) Music piracy not that bad, industry says (TorrentFreak) US Copyright – Decisions District Court W D Virginia: Judge decides 17,000 illegal downloads don’t equal 17,000 lost sales: United… [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 3:10 am
The Court dismissed these claims, finding that Blackstone was not a party to the merger agreement and that the plaintiffs had not stated a claim for breach. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
That testimony killed the plaintiff's standard product liability case, because under California (and almost all other states') law, a plaintiff cannot establish causation in an inadequate warning case where the prescribing physician did not rely upon the allegedly defective warning. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 7:21 pm
Bank & Trust Co. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 10:49 am
In Sowinski v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 12:35 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKTaxationGovernment Awarded Penalty, Interest Assessed For Defendant's Failure to Pay Withholding TaxesUnited States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 4:15 am
Seeger v. [read post]
