Search for: "Million v. Million" Results 7881 - 7900 of 34,566
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 May 2007, 6:25 am
" The difference was substantial, with the former totaling $3.6 million, and latter at $2.7 million.The Nassau County Supreme Court concluded that the $3.6 million calculation applied, as did the Appellate Division, Second Department. [read post]
15 Feb 2015, 4:24 pm by INFORRM
A nurse has won US$2 million in damages in a defamation suit against her former employer. [read post]
16 Jan 2006, 3:29 am
In a relatively straightforward decision, the 4th Circuit recently affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement in CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 3:28 am
The case is Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 1:20 pm
Breyer made repeated efforts on Wednesday to keep open the chances that an $18 million settlement of  a major copyright dispute may yet get a full hearing on its fairness in federal court, but he found little support among other members of the Supreme Court as they pondered the scope of a federal court’s power over copyright lawsuits in Reed Elsevier v. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 3:37 am by Howard M. Wasserman
Locomotively questionable train analogies and a bench skeptical of the petitioner’s position marked Tuesday’s argument in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 9:51 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Second Circuit holds that a jury properly awarded more than $1.5 million in damages against two Syracuse police officers who threw a man to the ground in the course of his arrest, causing significant physical injuries.The case is Grant v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 12:52 pm
  The agreed-upon baseball range was $10,000 to $5 million. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 4:57 am by Ted Frank
Spending $55 million to avoid $24 million in damage is the very definition of economic inefficiency. [read post]
10 May 2012, 1:00 pm by Massimiliano Di Martino
In its Judgment in Joined Cases C-357/10 to C-359/10 Duomo Gpa Srl and Others v Comune di Baranzate and Others, the Court’s reply is that the Italian legislation amounts to a restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services inasmuch as it contains a condition relating to minimum share capital and forces private operators wishing to pursue those activities to incorporate and to have a fully paid-up share capital of EUR 10 million. [read post]