Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hickox sustained several significant injuries throughout his career, notably while serving as a home plate umpire. On May 14, 2005, Hickox suffered an "inner ear injury including concussion and several broken [facial] bones" while wearing a Wilson-manufactured "sample" mask that Hickox alleged was defective, filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer for failing to inform Hickox that his ...
Total settlement: $60 million. Deadline to file claim: May 18, 2023. Requirements: Must have been an unlimited data customer between Oct. 1, 2011 and June 30, 2015.
MACOM and GigOptix Announce Final Settlement of All Pending Suits Between Them LOWELL, Mass. & SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. ...
High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation is a 2010 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust action and a 2013 civil class action against several Silicon Valley companies for alleged "no cold call" agreements which restrained the recruitment of high-tech employees.
By barring any means of sharing or shrinking arbitration costs, the arbitration clause in the American Express form contract functions to confer immunity from potentially meritorious federal claims, which runs counter to the purpose of the FAA ("No rational actor would bring a claim worth tens of thousands of dollars if doing so meant incurring ...
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
U.S. Sailing has settled its federal lawsuit against veteran sailor and executive Paul Cayard and the America One Racing foundation, the sport's governing body announced on Wednesday. Dropping the ...
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".