Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the ...
Lemon law protection arises under state law, with every U.S. state and the District of Columbia having its own lemon law. [1] Although the exact criteria vary by state, new vehicle lemon laws require that an auto manufacturer repurchase a vehicle that has a significant defect that the manufacturer is unable to repair within a reasonable amount of time. [2]
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc 1 All ER 873, – also known as the Jif Lemon case – is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court reaffirmed the three part test (reputation and goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage) in order to establish a claim of passing off. Background per Slade LJ: Reckitt, sold lemon juice under the name "Jif Lemon" which came in ...
The tech billionaire’s comments came a day after Lemon sued Musk and X (formerly known as Twitter), alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and more over the canceled pact ...
Get a daily dose of cute photos of animals like cats, dogs, and more along with animal related news stories for your daily life from AOL.
Here's a timeline of the legal fallout of Jones' inflammatory claims. Alex Jones is called up to testify at the Travis County Courthouse Tuesday Aug. 2, 2022, in Austin.
The federal "lemon law" also provides that the warrantor may be obligated to pay the attorney fees of the party prevailing in a lemon law suit, as do most state lemon laws. If a car has to be repaired for the same defect four or more times and the problem is still occurring, the car may be deemed to be a "lemon".
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.