Search for: "11-7 Recording Corp." Results 521 - 540 of 1,296
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2012, 4:00 pm by John Elwood
NAACP, 11-1247, a Third Circuit case set for the June 7 Conference that  involved a Ricci defense to a residency requirement challenged under Title VII. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 5:39 pm
NLRB Law Memo 11/14/2007 by LawMemo - First in Employment Law. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 11:36 am
John Takacs, III, Heller First Capitol Corp., et al (NFP) - "JPMorgan Chase, N.A. and Washington Mutual, N.A. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
  Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business.[2]  Virtually nonexistent in the patent space in the U.S. ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance,[3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF)[4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates.[5] Insurance options are suddenly plentiful,[6] funders are expanding and… [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 8:40 am by John Elwood
In Bendix Autolite Corp. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:52 am by Schachtman
  In this respect, statisticians are like material scientists who may test and record experimental observations on a product or its constituents. [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:38 am by Bruce Colbath
”[11] Damages The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s award of lost profits, noting that the record supported the finding of willful deception, and that the award of lost profits was necessary to deter future unlawful conduct, prevent Gnosis’s unjust enrichment, and compensate Merck for the busin [read post]
21 Aug 2014, 10:30 am by Bruce Colbath
”[11] Damages The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s award of lost profits, noting that the record supported the finding of willful deception, and that the award of lost profits was necessary to deter future unlawful conduct, prevent Gnosis’s unjust enrichment, and compensate Merck for the [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 4:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
A contract violating Section 4 78 is illegal “and under our settled rules [New York courts] refuse to aid in it but leave the parties where they are” (Spivak, 16 NY2d at 168, citing McConnell v Commonwealth Pictures Corp., 7 NY2d 465 [1960]; see also El Gamayel v Seaman, 72 NY2d 701, 705 [1988] [“As a matter of public policy, a contract to provide services in violation of [Judiciary Law§ 478] is unenforceable in our state courts”]). [read post]