Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Also known as the "McDonald's coffee case", Liebeck v. McDonald's is a well-known product liability lawsuit that became a flash point in the debate in the U.S. over tort reform after a jury awarded $2.9 million to Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who sued McDonald's after she suffered third-degree burns from hot ...
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, also known as the McDonald's coffee case and the hot coffee lawsuit, was a highly publicized 1994 product liability lawsuit in the United States against the McDonald's restaurant chain. [1]
Hot Coffee discusses several cases and relates each to tort reform in the United States: . Liebeck v. McDonald's Rests., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 18, 1994) (judgment awarding Liebeck $2.86 million in "hot coffee" case), vacated, 1994 WL 16777704 (Nov. 28, 1994): how tort cases are publicized to instigate tort reform.
(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp has lost its rights to the trademark "Big Mac" in a European Union case ruling in favour of Ireland-based fast-food chain Supermac's, a decision from the EU's Spain ...
The following video is part of our "Motley Fool Conversations" series, in which consumer-goods editor and analyst Austin Smith discusses topics around the investing world.With McDonald's trading ...
McDonald's has become an enigma to many investors. Many people feel as though McDonald's is missing out on the rise of the health-conscious consumer, many of which are millennials. Millennials are ...
McMillions (stylized as McMillion$) is a documentary miniseries about the McDonald's Monopoly promotion scam that occurred between 1989 and 2001. Directed by James Lee Hernandez and Brian Lazarte, the series details how the scam was perpetrated by Jerry Jacobson, [1] the head of security for the agency that ran the promotion, and how he recruited a wide range of accomplices.
Almost all of London Greenpeace's resources and efforts went to helping the pair over the years the case was heard, but in 1997 both defendants lost and were ordered to pay McDonald's £60,000. However, the extended court battle was a public relations failure for McDonald's; the company decided not to pursue the two defendants for the money.