Search for: "Manufacturing Company v. United States"
Results 1301 - 1320
of 3,131
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
The plaintiff is the homeowner’s insurer and the defendants are the manufacturer and retailer of the hot tub unit. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm
Eight states (Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) provide for a one-tier structure. 14 EU countries offer a choice of structure. [read post]
4 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm
” The action will alleged be based upon the Company’s “apparent failure to inform the market, over a long period of time, about its suspected practice of installing and using ‘defeat device’ software in a very significant number of vehicles it manufactured and sold in the United States and other world car markets. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 1:04 pm
In a matter of first impression, the Court, in United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 9:39 am
In the United States, copyright law principally serves as an economic policy by protecting creators’ ability to recoup the investments they make in generating new works that have value to society. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:00 am
Wallace v Conagra Foods Inc., 2014 WL 1356860 (8th Cir. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 6:21 pm
Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Morrison v. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 6:56 am
Turbodyne was the manufacturer of a part of a catalytic cracking unit involved in that fire. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 1:13 am
The same happened in the aftermath of the Puffin/Penguin case [United Biscuits v Asda, noted here]. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 5:38 pm
TERRY, Appellant, v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 10:27 am
A facial challenge to Act 120 would succeed if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep (United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 10:27 am
A facial challenge to Act 120 would succeed if a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep (United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 5:15 am
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 7:17 pm
Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and… [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 3:01 pm
Sept. 9, 2015), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reached the same conclusion in the context of a non-pharmaceutical product. [read post]
15 Sep 2015, 4:07 pm
Since 1961, California has expressly prohibited the designation of products as “Made in the USA” or “Made in America” when the product or “any article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 7:41 am
The “United States” were always referred to in the plural. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 10:55 am
Whether Judge Ronnie Abrams will follow suit, of course, remains to be seen, but Pacira has Second Circuit precedent—United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 5:47 pm
In one version of the story, his 1903 application was denied on the basis his company was more an ‘assembler of parts’ than a true ‘manufacturer’. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 5:01 am
Public Service Commission, is a “a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech,” 447 U.S. 557, 564 (1980), we’re certain that mining the government’s briefs in prior First Amendment litigation such as United States v. [read post]
