Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 721 - 740
of 1,438
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am
Circuit held that even if the accommodation did impose a substantial burden on one or more plaintiffs' religious exercise, the government has compelling reasons for rejecting any further accommodation or exemption, and that such interests cannot be adequately advanced by any less restrictive means. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 5:28 pm
Indeed, absent the filing of a notice of pendency, plaintiff would run the risk of losing its potential mortgage lien to a bona fide purchaser. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 8:11 pm
The Clerk is directed to enter a default judgment against the defendants listed above. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 12:33 pm
The court explained that the underpayment or diversion of fees that were properly payable to the LLC supported a claim that those actions were actually, or reasonably appeared to have been, made intentionally to hinder the interests of the plaintiff as a holder of equity and debt in that LLC, for less than reasonably equivalent value, while the LLC was in financial distress. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 2:06 pm
City of Yucaipa (Target Stores, Inc., Real Party In Interest) (4th Dist., Div. 2, 2015) ____ Cal.App.4th ____, 2015 WL 3564971. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 7:17 am
Snuggly Plushez case, one of the last plaintiff-favorable initial interest confusion rulings). [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 4:39 am
(Interesting definition of tradition, but okay.) [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 1:35 pm
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Real Party in Interest) (4th Dist., Div. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:13 am
Conflict b/t TM logic and unfair competition law: German SCt decided that TM logic prevailed and that TM logic needs to be taken into account in unfair competition analysis, even though Directive does not have exceptions or provisions for balancing competing interests. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 9:32 pm
It is, moreover, a starting place for anyone interested in locating the party who has such an interest in the property that he has been regularly paying the taxes thereon after the single default. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 8:32 am
The agreement between McKinley and Heritage called for Heritage to pay McKinley over $2 million (one lump sum payment of $1.1 million, plus $400,000 to purchase an annuity which would pay periodic payments totaling $972,892.80 over thirty years). [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 5:56 am
”Second, “the claims in Buckman, which were directed at a defendant that was not the manufacturer of the devices and therefore did not have a manufacturer’s duty to warn purchasers of safety risks, did not “rely[] on traditional state tort law. [read post]
31 May 2015, 4:26 pm
As to that remaining claim, which asserted that FedEx breached that plaintiff’s operating agreement by reconfiguring his primary service area and failing to provide notice or compensation for the reconfiguration, the appeals court agreed that under Pennsylvania law (which applied under the operating agreement), the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the alleged breach because it occurred after he assigned his interest in the operating agreement to a corporate… [read post]
31 May 2015, 10:21 am
Contracts -- Statute of frauds -- Oral agreement not to be performed within one year of the making of the agreement -- Terminable-at-will oral agreement to purchase lottery tickets and to equally share in the proceeds of any winning lottery ticket is outside statute of frauds, and is enforceable, because agreement could have been performed within one yearHOWARD BROWNING, Petitioner, v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:19 am
Interested in refining/defining broad classes in relation to the support in the record. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:04 pm
I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this blog’s readers. [read post]
18 May 2015, 4:40 pm
An interesting May 6, 2015 decision (here) by the Supreme Court of Victoria (Melbourne) addressed the interesting question of what is the relevant point in time for determining the ownership percentage – at the time the claim is made or at the time the wrongful acts allegedly took place? [read post]
7 May 2015, 3:54 pm
It will be interesting to see how this case progresses. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:26 pm
” The plaintiffs suggest that this provision was a likely model for the Congressional enactment, and a comparison of the purpose and the language of the provision confirms their suggestion. [read post]
