Search for: "SUPERIOR PERFORMERS, INC." Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,600
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2012, 5:30 am
The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division of Mercer County, challenging Long & Foster Real Estate Inc. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 3:00 am by Ted Folkman
HT to Antonin Pribetic for a pointer to today’s case of the day, Khan Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:30 am by Matthew Shultz
The court rejected what it apparently saw as an overly aggressive enforcement position regarding a 2006 consent judgment with Garden of Life, Inc. and its owner. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 5:27 am by Jodi Frankel
Resources for Human Development, Inc., a 2011 case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it was presumed that a non-profit is covered by the Whistleblower Law. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm by admin
 Instead, as noted, one might approach the policy communication by stressing how compliance with the antitrust laws are in an individual’s self-interest, and how following the rules will facilitate career advancement and will enable superior performance by the company. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm by admin
 Instead, as noted, one might approach the policy communication by stressing how compliance with the antitrust laws are in an individual’s self-interest, and how following the rules will facilitate career advancement and will enable superior performance by the company. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60 (1st Dept 1964), the court construed the directors' duties under §717(a) as inclusive of the duty of loyalty, stating: [Directors] may not assume and engage in the promotion of personal interests which are incompatible with the superior interests of their corporation. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 9:59 am
In addressing commonality, the court applied the recent decision in Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am by SteinMcewen, LLP
  Thus, the new prior user defense will likely benefit those users who are performing experimental or pre-commercial uses as opposed to those users who are actually commercializing the invention. 35 U.S.C. [read post]