Search for: "Million v. Million"
Results 5761 - 5780
of 34,548
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
New Judgment: Barton and others v Morris and another in place of Gwyn-Jones (deceased) [2022] UKSC 3
25 Jan 2023, 2:39 am
In the High Court it was held that Foxpace agreed to pay Mr Barton £1.2 million if he introduced a purchaser for Nash House who bought it for £6.5 million. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 8:48 am
Among these significant settlements included approval of a $4.85 million consent decree in EEOC v. [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 12:38 pm
Rearden LLC v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:35 am
Sefton v. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 10:55 am
In Brown v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 10:14 am
The current state of the law on pre-nuptial agreements received a pretty thorough airing in the case of NG v KR (Pre-nuptial contract) [2008] EWHC 1532 (Fam). [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 3:54 am
Additional Resources: Alcala v. [read post]
26 Mar 2017, 9:38 pm
This could possibly entail larger yearly royalty payments and a large sum paid as compensation for the alleged infringement, similar to the resolution of the Ericsson v Apple case in 2015 (Financial Times article; paywall).The market tends to agree, although a little more conservatively. [read post]
30 May 2012, 6:20 am
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 4:00 am
In some ways, however, R. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
In December I wrote here and here about Baptist Hospital v. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 4:46 pm
The collective claims to have lost $87.9 million, Union Investment $20.3 million and Wolverhampton/Amalgamated $5.9 million. [read post]
2 Nov 2012, 2:01 am
The District of Massachusetts has issued a decision in Vicor v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 6:30 am
The plaintiffs claim that the company issued misleading statements about Kodak’s prospects that inflated the stock’s value, and that they suffered losses when the share price subsequently fell after the misrepresentations became known to the market (Tang v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 8:36 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2015, 8:26 am
In 2007, in United States of America v. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 10:07 am
Justice Holmes said in Olmstead v. [read post]
