Search for: "CIT, Inc."
Results 21 - 40
of 250
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Aug 2018, 1:26 pm
Ruff, Case Number DA 17-0102, Cit. 2018 MT 182, J. [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 2:28 pm
United States (CIT Slip Op. 07-41). [read post]
27 Sep 2009, 3:21 pm
On Sunday, Moore-Handley, Inc. filed a notice with the bankrutpcy court announcing its determination of the successful bidder for substantially all of its assets. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 8:22 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 7:20 pm
Acres Gaming Inc., No. [read post]
7 Aug 2018, 1:06 pm
Ruff, Case Number DA 17-0102, Cit. 2018 MT 182, J. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 12:26 pm
Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:54 am
Filed: October 5, 2009Opinion by Judge James R. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 7:34 am
Plastics, Inc. the second involved a company call Green Planet, Inc. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 9:56 am
The case of the day is Porsche Motorsport North America, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 4:25 pm
On the other hand, I do enjoy stretching my creative lawyering skills.In Erwin Hymer Group North America, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2018, 8:10 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 8:10 am
Gasoline Marketers Council, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 2:27 pm
Le délai de cinq ans précité (15 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:12 pm
Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:31 pm
The lawsuit alleges that beginning in the mid 1990s and until as recently as 2006, the company was charging state and federal offices for services that were dysfunctional or non-existent.The second company, CIT Group, Inc., paid over $3 million to resolve allegation that, after purchasing a portion of Avaya’s customer base, CIT continued the fraudulent billing scheme.The qui tam case was brought under the False Claims Act by two whistleblowers in 2004. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:54 pm
Where We Started: Energizer In Energizer Battery, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:54 pm
Where We Started: Energizer In Energizer Battery, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 3:28 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 8:22 pm
The CIT gave no weight to evidence of use in making its determination.On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the CIT was incorrect to essentially ignore use. [read post]
