enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellabs,_Inc._v._Makor...

    Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. [1]

  3. List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. 551 U.S. 308 (2007) The proper standard for determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a "strong inference" of scienter under the PSLRA: Morse v. Frederick: 551 U.S. 393 (2007) free speech rights of high school students ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus") CBOCS West v. Humphries: 551 U.S. 442 (2008)

  4. Tellabs - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellabs

    Tellabs, Inc. is a global network technology company that provides networking and communications solutions to both private and governmental agencies. [2] The company offers a range of products and services, including optical transport systems, access systems, managed access solutions, and network management software.

  5. Talk:Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tellabs,_Inc._v._Makor...

    Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate

  6. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Atlantic_Corp._v._Twombly

    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure.Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

  7. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_International_Co._v...

    On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...

  8. Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal_Corp._v._Mesa...

    Unocal v. Mesa Petroleum Co. , 493 A.2d 946 (Del. 1985) [ 1 ] is a landmark decision of the Delaware Supreme Court on corporate defensive tactics against take-over bids. Until the Unocal decision in 1985, the Delaware courts had applied the business judgment rule , when appropriate, to takeover defenses, mergers, and sales.

  9. Thornburg v. Gingles - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornburg_v._Gingles

    Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice."