Search for: "Wal-Mart Inc. Stores" Results 1721 - 1740 of 1,969
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2009, 8:28 pm
Setton also provides the pistachios sold in Wal-Mart Stores Inc's Sam's Choice private brand of pistachios. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 9:05 pm
Dishmon v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, ___F.Supp.2d___ (MDTenn, February 17, 2009), is an interesting lower court decision applying Tenn state employment law. [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 5:55 am
"Wal-Mart Ruling Has Wide Reach on Discrimination Cases": Today's edition of The Wall Street Journal contains an article that begins, "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. heads back to a federal appeals court on Tuesday to argue that a sex-discrimination lawsuit against it shouldn't proceed as a class-action case covering more than a million women. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 12:00 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., currently set for oral argument before an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit on March 24. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 2:53 am
Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), a panel of the Ninth Circuit (2-1) affirmed the certification of a 1.5 million member class of all women employed at any domestic Wal-Mart retail store at any time since December 26, 1998 who may have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart’s challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 11:15 pm
., Inc., 199 USPQ 560 (TTAB 1978)), as well as the Supreme Court's decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 6:00 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 504 F.Supp.2d 939, 947 (S.D.Cal.2007) (noting split of authority but finding that, with recent Proposition 64 reforms, the UCL now requires reliance); Anunziato v. eMachines, Inc., 402 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1137-39 (C.D.Cal.2005) (declining to read a reliance requirement into the UCL); In re Tobacco II Cases, 146 P.3d 1250 (2006) (granting petition for review on issue of whether UCL requires reliance); Def.'s Opp'n n. 5;… [read post]