Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
2017 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States#Kisela v. Hughes; Retrieved from " ...
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018. [1] ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 569 U.S. 1017 (2013).: Holding; Judgment AFFIRMED. Static Control's alleged injuries—lost sales and damage to its business reputation—fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and Static Control sufficiently alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark's ...
Parham v. Hughes , 441 U.S. 347 (1979), was a case the Supreme Court of the United States heard and decided in 1979 . [ 1 ] The decision upheld a Georgia law that barred fathers of illegitimate children from bringing wrongful death claims without imposing the same burden on mothers .
American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo , which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet -connected devices, [ 1 ] violated copyright laws.
Shlensky v Wrigley, 237 NE 2d 776 (Ill. App. 1968) is a leading US corporate law case concerning the board's discretion to determine how to balance stakeholders' interests. The case embraces the application of the business judgment rule to directors' good-faith judgments about long-term shareholder value. [ 1 ]
[7] According to Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc., in which the Lanham Act infringement and Section 43(a) claims were considered jointly, the Section 43(a) claims of Tiffany are governed by the same legal analysis as its federal infringement claims. Thus, Tiffany's Section 43(a) claims must fail as the contributory and direct ...
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court.The Court held that drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials.