enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Breakup of the Bell System - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

    The new AT&T Inc. lacks the vertical integration that characterized the historic AT&T Corporation and led to the Department of Justice antitrust suit. [23] AT&T Inc. announced it would not switch back to the Bell logo, [24] thus ending corporate use of the Bell logo by the Baby Bells, with the lone exception of Verizon.

  3. United States v. AT&T (1982) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT&T_(1982)

    United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (1982), was a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, [1] that led to the 1984 Bell System divestiture, and the breakup of the old AT&T natural monopoly into seven regional Bell operating companies and a much smaller new version of AT&T.

  4. United States v. AT&T - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT&T

    United States v. AT&T may refer to several court cases: United States v. AT&T, a lawsuit enforcing the divestiture of the Bell System; United States v. AT&T, a lawsuit attempting to block a merger with Time Warner

  5. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Mobility_LLC_v...

    AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. [1] [2] On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of ...

  6. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!

  7. Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._District_of...

    James Martin was a serial abuser of the court’s certiorari process; in the past decade following the court’s per curium opinion, Martin filed 45 petitions relating to being incarcerated for an unrelated offense, and the last 15 petitions for the prior two years were dismissed under the court’s rule 39.8. [4]

  8. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_v._Martin...

    Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. , 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children.

  9. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._AT&T_Corp.

    Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), [1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).