Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,420
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Sep 2021, 9:05 am
Entrepreneur fell within the statute’s zone of interests—alleged lost sales and reputational injury. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 5:21 am
Plaintiff claimed to have no interest in SC Management or six other entities that received subpoenas. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 3:00 am
Dowd Purchase on Amazon.com and Westlaw (Directory: COPYLITIG) [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 3:30 am
The two owners, Roopnarine Singh and Edward Radburn, hold 55% and 45% stock interests, respectively. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 5:00 am
DB Investments, Inc., 613 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2010), which vacated an order granting final approval of a nationwide settlement of direct and indirect purchaser claims for price-fixing in the diamond industry. [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]
15 Mar 2020, 12:28 pm
You might anticipate at this point that figuring out whether the plaintiff is a direct purchaser could get confusing. [read post]
13 May 2010, 6:22 am
See id. at 43 ("the Amended Complaint is devoid of any allegations showing that Plaintiffs . . . relied upon, or even were aware of, the [physician directed] Marketing and/or [direct-to-consumer] Advertising campaigns which form the basis for these Plaintiffs UTPCPL claims"). [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 12:21 pm
Contracts -- Asset purchase agreements -- Assumption of debt -- Action alleging that defendant had assumed debt which was secured by equipment defendant purchased as part of APA -- Error to enter summary judgment in favor of plaintiff where plaintiff did not refute defendant's affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against it -- Although plaintiff alleged that defendant assumed debtor's obligations… [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 9:53 am
In this case, Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant obligating Defendant to indemnify Plaintiff for all damages, which was defined as “the monetary portion of any judgment, award or settlement . . . not [to] include . . . [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 9:53 am
In this case, Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant obligating Defendant to indemnify Plaintiff for all damages, which was defined as “the monetary portion of any judgment, award or settlement . . . not [to] include . . . [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
As competitors, they’d be within the Lanham Act zone of interests. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 1:47 pm
Of the claims under the surviving state laws, where reliance was required, plaintiffs adequately pled it, based on pleading past purchases under the VSL#3 brand name. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 5:57 am
The Supreme Court awarded the defendant $3,000 per week for child support and $3,000 per week in temporary spousal maintenance, directed the plaintiff to pay the mortgage and taxes on the marital residence where the defendant resided with the parties' children, directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant's car insurance, and awarded the defendant interim counsel fees and expert fees in the sums of $12,500 and $3,500, respectively. [read post]
18 Aug 2022, 11:04 am
” The parties also disputed whether Montera had to present evidence of actual damages; because the statutes allow a plaintiff to recover the greater of actual damages or statutory damages, that meant that both had to be determined and compared, so Montera was directed to prove actual damages at trial, which also assisted in the constitutional argument. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 2:34 pm
Consider these examples: Successor in interest. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 12:43 pm
" In indirect purchaser cases, where discovery generally would need to be of third parties, this creates some interesting dilemmas for the court and the parties. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 3:29 pm
A New York Probate Lawyer said this action stems from plaintiff's attempt to purchase certain real property, located at Bronx County ("subject property"), in August 2005, from four members of a family. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 5:47 pm
This action stems from plaintiff's attempt to purchase certain real property, located at Bronx County ("subject property"), in August 2005, from four members of a family. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 9:03 am
" (If the parties were the only two competitors in the market, this would necessarily target plaintiff, but there's no indication in the opinion that this is so.) [read post]
