Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,421
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2015, 3:29 am
Accordingly, given that plaintiffs lack the vote of at least a majority in interest of limited partners, they cannot seek to dissolve Smith Energy. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
”[20] Thus, like the district court, on de novo review the Second Circuit applied the Reves factors: Motivations of the Parties. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 12:11 am
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused the Funds to purchase billions of shares of thinly capitalized U.S. companies. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 5:44 am
Moreover, plaintiffs lacked valid restitution claims because they had no direct or vested ownership interest in money transferred to Uber. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 3:47 pm
The advocacy groups seek to intervene as defendants with a direct interest in defending the final rule. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 6:19 am
The elements are an "(1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; (5) causation." [read post]
6 Sep 2016, 6:12 am
Also, proximate causation failed in BBB in part because the lack of sufficient overlap between the parties’ customers; here, “[t]he overlap between plaintiff’s and defendants’ prospective customers in this case is much tighter and arguably 1:1. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 10:33 am
The class action complaint alleged that plaintiff’s right foot got caught in the lawnmower’s blade while he was using it at his home in Minnesota, and that plaintiff had purchased the lawnmower in Minnesota. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 7:44 am
To maintain a cause of action under § 1125(a), “a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations. [read post]
13 Jul 2014, 8:45 pm
The court disagrees that respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a First Amendment violation. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 9:39 am
That may be true—purchasing a legal education typically (and hopefully) involves months of thorough research—but this fact alone does not preclude finding a likelihood of confusion prior to the purchase (i.e., initial-interest confusion). [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 11:14 am
In 2001, the late land-developer Steven Sherman purchased 400 acres of land in the town of Chester, New York, with the intent of building a housing subdivision called MareBrook. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 8:17 am
Is the actual purchaser's use of the product and interest in the writing more relevant than that of purchasers of similar bands? [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 3:28 am
The more interesting part of the decision concerns the plaintiffs’ direct, contract claim alleging that the issuance of the treasury shares without payment violated the operating agreement’s provision stating that the Class C treasury units “will only be issued as Class C Units, unless purchased/assigned to Class A Member(s). [read post]
20 May 2010, 12:46 pm
“Plaintiffs have neither pled a cognizable injury nor a direct relation between Plaintiffs’ injury and [defendant’s] alleged misconduct. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 4:17 pm
STANISLAV ZASLAVSKIY, Appellee. 3rd District.Condominiums -- Assessment liens -- Foreclosure -- Damages -- Trial court erred when it adjudicated amount of damages owed to condominium association as a matter of law where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether association was estopped from seeking pre-purchase assessments, fees, and costs based on purported representations regarding amount of outstanding assessments made by association's manager and president… [read post]
23 Aug 2017, 4:13 am
Defendant argued that this award was improper since plaintiff had not seen a doctor or gotten prescription medicine in almost two years, but the Court rejected this argument, finding that it was “directed toward [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 6:33 am
Defendants purchased a business from Plaintiffs in 2006 for $175,000. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 12:45 pm
It claimed the order could not be made against a non-party to the main action. [read post]
8 May 2017, 4:00 am
., 2017-Ohio-640, upholding the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas’ dismissal of the complaint by the plaintiff-appellants Thomas Dundics and IBIS Land Group, Ltd. [read post]
