Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A few days later, the plaintiffs proposed a $25,000 settlement to Thomas-Rasset. She declined. [26] The plaintiffs then rejected the damage reduction ordered by the judge. [27] On June 18, the court appointed a special master to facilitate negotiations due to the parties' failure to reach a settlement. [28]
The jury was to decide whether "Blurred Lines" infringed upon the following limited elements: i) Signature Phrase ii) Hooks iii) Bass Lines iv) Harmonic Structures, and v) Keyboard Chords. [15] The jury was allowed to hear a limited portion of Gaye's sound recording that substantially reflected the disputed subject-matter.
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates won what was the largest non-death compensatory personal injury verdict in Illinois history as noted by the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter. [ 4 ] In 2012, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates attorneys received a $64 million verdict, the largest in Illinois history and the second largest in U.S. history, for a Local ...
On the eve of a jury trial in June 2017, Disney settled a defamation lawsuit brought by a beef company for a whopping $177 million. The case stemmed from a series of ABC News reports in 2012 ...
ABC’s $15 million settlement with Donald Trump following the president-elect’s defamation lawsuit has alarmed legal analysts and drawn criticism that the network and its Disney parent company ...
Amounts paid out will vary, up to $395 for anyone who had to replace more than one keyboard, $125 for a replacement of a single keyboard and $40 for repairs on a keycap, as GOBankingRates ...
After further proceedings, the Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court, for it to reinstate the 2008 jury verdict of infringement and the $40 million plus lost profits award. [18] [19] Limelight announced its intention to appeal the judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court, [20] and on January 26, 2016, filed a certiorari petition. [21]
The near $2 billion verdict, along with the pre-trial settlements, could dismantle the NAR’s hold over a system that has long been criticized for disadvantaging sellers and buyers.