Search for: "In re Kmart Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Mar 2011, 5:30 pm
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Delta Enterpise Corp. have re-announced the recall of over 985,000 drop-side cribs with "Crib Trigger Lock and Safety Peg" hardware. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 9:24 am by Kara Elgersma, Of Counsel
., Kmart Holding Corp., The Kroger Co., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co. and Target Stores, Inc. was a class action, removable under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”). [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 10:13 am by Alexa Silverman
  Now they’re all the rage in the courtroom. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 1:34 pm
Two separate drop side cribs made by Delta Enterprise Corp., of New York, New York are involved in the recall notice. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 10:35 am by Chris Wesner
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS In re: : Chapter 11 : Murray Metallurgical Coal : Case No. 20-10390 Holdings, LLC, et al., : : Judge Hoffman : Debtors [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
Pa. 1989); In re Bexar County Health Facility Development Corp. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 5:24 pm
The retailers are: Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark. - (800) 925-6278 or Toys "R" Us Inc., of Wayne, N.J. - (800) 869-7787 or or Kmart Corp., of Hoffman Estates, Ill. - (800) 659-7026 or Big Lots! [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 7:45 am
While the current situation may be a stalemate between both sides, according to Sony Corp.'s head[33], one format is bound to win out in the end. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 8:49 am by Denise
When employees aren't worried about being fired for reasons not related to their workplace performance, they're more productive and effective, Keisling said. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 4:14 am by Marie Louise
First Quality Baby Products (Gray on Claims) (IP Osgoode) CAFC: Pet-door patent dispute over jurisdiction clarified: Radio Systems Corp. v. [read post]
2 May 2019, 12:31 pm by MOTP
REV. 339, 340 (2013) Several other courts of appeals have jumped on the bandwagon without re-examining the validity of the suit-on-account theory for collection of a bank debt that does not involve sale of goods or services, thus lowering the proof requirements for credit card debt plaintiffs, and depriving the defendants of any benefits that might accrue from the existence of a written contract. [read post]