Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. [1] The case is a significant precedent on the matter of the applicability of American contract law to new types of shrinkwrap licenses that arose with home computing and the Internet in the 1990s, and whether such licenses are enforceable contracts.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers.
Loft Inc, 5 A.2d 503, 23 Del. Ch. 255 (Del. 1939) is a Delaware corporation law case, important for United States corporate law, on corporate opportunities and the duty of loyalty. It deviated from the year 1726 rule laid down in Keech v Sandford [ 1 ] that a fiduciary should leave open no possibility of conflict of interest between his private ...
The Supreme Court case was the consolidation of three prior cases which had created a split opinion in the Circuit Courts in relation to the FAA and the NLRA, and which all had submitted petitions for writ of certiorari in 2016. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (Docket 16-285) involved employees at Epic Systems, a Wisconsin healthcare software ...
Full case name: Norsk Pacific Steamship Company Limited, Norsk Pacific Marine Services Ltd., The Tug Jervis Crown and Francis MacDonnell v. Canadian National Railway Company: Citations [1992] 1 SCR 1021, (1992), 91 DLR (4th) 289: Docket No. 21838 [1] Ruling: Appeal dismissed; CN is entitled to recovery from Norsk: Holding
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.
Green 83 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana, 1955) is an American contract law case. It is commonly taught to first year law students. It is commonly taught to first year law students. [ 1 ]