Search for: "American Honda Motor Co., Inc. " Results 141 - 160 of 170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2013, 2:54 pm by Ken
He has litigated cases against Intel Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Honda North America, Inc., Aston Martin Lagonda of North America, Inc., BMW of North America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Keyes European, LLC, Rusnak Enterprises, LLC and Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. [read post]
21 May 2015, 1:09 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), which held that an “action was barred because it directly conflicted with the agency’s policy choice to encourage flexibility to foster innovation. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 12:56 pm
  This means that each co-defendant in a tort case is liable for no more than his respective percentage of fault. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm by Kirk Jenkins
Northshore University Healthsystem, and earlier in American Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:58 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
 The panelists also noted that the Supreme Court left open the question of whether a Daubert analysis is appropriate at the class certification stage, while hinting that it is based on American Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 5:58 am by Rebecca Tushnet
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), contained a throwaway line “[N]o class may be certified that contains members lacking Article III standing,” citing a Second Circuit case but then immediately citing Stearns and not explaining the contradiction, and then setting a low bar for standing: as the court here summarized, “[s]imply spending money on something that doesn’t do what it claims to do is all the… [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 7:31 pm
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869 (2000), and applied that principle in our neck of the woods in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Virginia viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and upholding the maximum amount a rational jury could award on the record so viewed (measured by the relevant legal guideposts), based on Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 5:54 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 873 (2000).Preemption is not limited to displacing state statutes. [read post]
19 May 2010, 4:47 am by Sean Wajert
  I recently posted about the7th Circuit decision in American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 4:07 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). [read post]
8 May 2009, 10:00 am
(BLOG@IP::JUR) CAFC Judge Rader: ‘Stronger IP system allows countries to compete in world marketplace’ (PatentlyBIOtech) Professor Mossoff’s historical paper about patent thickets, patent trolls and patent pools: relevant today (IP Dragon) The balance between standards and patent regulation (IP Frontline) Patents in a bear market (IP Solutions)   Australia Full Federal Court: Commonsense approach to trade mark use and the beer/wine dichotomy confirmed:… [read post]
13 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Securing Innovation) PriorSmart.com search tool, tracking patent documents (Competitive Info) (Patently-O) Patent damages as an incentive to transact (IP finance) IPscore, new patent evaluation toy (IP finance) Patent portfolios can pull companies out of financial rut (Law360)   Global - Copyright Expanding the public domain: part zero (Creative Commons)     Australia Pioneering decision on non-use: Pioneer Computers Australia Pty Limited v Pioneer KK (Australian Trade… [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 2:09 pm by Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (2000) 529 U.S. 861, 868, 120 S.Ct. 1913, 146 L.Ed.2d 914) (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) “[A] reading of the express pre-emption provision that excludes common-law tort actions gives actual meaning to the saving clause's literal language, while leaving adequate room for state tort law to operate-for example, where federal law creates only a floor, i.e., a minimum safety standard. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:55 am
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, (2000), Justice Breyer wrote a majority opinion that expressly rejected Justice Stevens's call in the dissent for the use of a presumption against preemption in analyzing implied preemption. [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]
31 Aug 2011, 3:37 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
  This is consistent with several court of appeals decisions issued shortly before Dukes, in particular the Seventh Circuit’s decision in American Honda Motor Co. v. [read post]