Search for: "305 Equity, Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 63
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2010, 3:10 am by Scott A. McKeown
Cir. 2007); and In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 84 USPQ2d 1929 (Fed. [read post]
1 Jun 2014, 7:45 am by Schachtman
We do not think anything is amiss with special courts for tax, patent, family law, national security, equity, or commercial matters. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm by Barry Barnett
Wendt[15] for refusing to require plaintiffs to go beyond pleading a claim element (loss causation) despite defendants’ argument that certification analysis must address plaintiffs’ ability to prove the element at trial and Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
  The first section unpacks the concept of law--common law, equity, statutes, regulation and law beyond law (social norms, and functional law. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am by Wolfgang Demino
., petitioners,v.Saliha MADDEN.No. 15-610.Supreme Court of United States.March 21, 2016.The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.SECOND CIRCUIT OPINION IN MADDEN V MIDLAND FUNDING LLC786 F.3d 246 (2015)Saliha MADDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.No. 14-2131-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second… [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am by Wolfgang Demino
., petitioners,v.Saliha MADDEN.No. 15-610.Supreme Court of United States.March 21, 2016.The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.SECOND CIRCUIT OPINION IN MADDEN V MIDLAND FUNDING LLC786 F.3d 246 (2015)Saliha MADDEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.No. 14-2131-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second… [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 2:52 pm by Andrea Matwyshyn
   A harmed consumer who was not using a bot in a contract pitted against a sophisticated company using a poorly-coded bot (because it chose to hire a bargain programmer) may indeed have inefficient needs, but is not the consumer the party more in need of the court’s protection as a matter of equity? [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 11:56 am
This post is by my colleagues Gail Lees, Andrew Tulumello, Chip Nierlich, Mark Whitburn and Chris Chorba. [read post]