ZHENG v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC 88 91 998 103 Ling Nan ZHENG‚ Ren Zhu Yang‚ Yun Zhen Huang‚ Wen Qin Lin‚ Sai Bing Wang‚ Ye Biao Yang‚ Cui Zhen Lin‚ Rong Yun Zheng‚ Hui Fang Lin‚ Xiu Ying Zheng‚ Jin Ping Lin‚ Hui Ming Dong‚ Yu Bing Luo‚ Sau Chi Kwok‚ Sai Xian Tang‚ Yi Zhen Lin‚ Rui Fang Zhang‚ Mei Juan Yu‚ Mei Ying Li‚ Qin Fang Qiu‚ Yi Mei Lin‚ Mei Zhu Dong‚ Fung Lam‚ Xiu Zhu Ye‚ Sing Kei Lam‚ and Xue Jin Lin‚ Plaintiffs-Appellants‚ v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC.‚ Albert Nigri‚ and Hagai Laniado
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Employment
EBC I‚ INC.‚ Formerly Known as eTOYS‚ INC.‚ by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ Respondent‚ v. GOLDMAN‚ SACHS & CO.‚ Appellant. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. 5 N.Y.3d 11 (2005) Before Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH‚ ROSENBLATT‚ GRAFFEO and R.S. SMITH concur with Judge CIPARICK. Judge READ dissents in part in a separate opinion. OPINION OF THE COURT CIPARICK‚ J. Plaintiff‚ the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of EBC I‚ Inc.‚ formerly known
Premium Initial public offering
1. 4–3. Business Torts. Medtronic‚ Inc.‚ is a medical technology company that competes for customers with St. Jude Medical S.C.‚ Inc. James Hughes worked for Medtronic as a sales manager. His contract prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving Medtronic. Hughes sought a position as a sales director for St. Jude. St. Jude told Hughes that his contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit‚ alleging wrongful interference
Premium Contract Tort Reasonable person
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services‚ Inc. Linda Ray Webster University Abstract Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services is a sexual discrimination case in which the Fifth Circuit court ruled in the case of the defendant Sundowner Offshore Services that same sex discrimination was not pursuable under Title VII. The US Supreme Court reversed that decision by stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long at it places the victim
Premium Sexual harassment Gender Abuse
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Dooney & Bourke Inc. In this famous case known as the “Battle of the Handbags” Louis Vuitton (LV) sues Dooney & Burke (D&B) for trademark infringement of its multicolore line. The Plaintiff‚ Louis Vuitton Malletier ‚is a French fashion house founded in 1854 by Louis Vuitton. The famous label is well known for its LV monogram‚ which is featured on most of its products. Louis Vuitton is considered as one of the world’s most valuable and prestigious brands. The LV monogram
Premium Trademark Supreme Court of the United States Trademark infringement
The vibrant‚ lively city of Burlington is the perfect place for you to own your own slice of the world! Placed between Greensboro and Durham‚ Burlington and surrounding towns like Graham‚ Cary and Chapel Hill are ideal for a family to settle down. Known for its exciting activities‚ business opportunities and hospitable community‚ Burlington has it all in this one area! The strategic location of the city‚ along the East Coast‚ makes it a hub for both business and economic activities! The low water
Premium Education School Teacher
INDUSTRIAL COURT OF MALAYSIA CASE NO. 12/4-410/04 BETWEEN ENCIK YAP CHO HEEON AND FIMCO MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD. AWARD NO. 704 OF 2012 Before : Y.A. TUAN GULAM MUHIADDEEN BIN ABDUL AZIZ - CHAIRMAN Venue : Industrial Court‚ Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Date of Reference : 27.02.2004 Dates of Mention : 25.05.2004; 07.12.2004; 15.09.2005; 31.05.2007; 03.12.2008; 23.09.2010; 17.01.2011; 06.04.2011; 10.08.2004; 16.12.2004; 12.07.2006; 31.03.2008; 03.06.2010; 28.10.2010; 17.02.2011; 11.05.2011; 08.09.2004;
Premium Contract Termination of employment Breach of contract
1. Can you (or Mr. Yourprop’s supervisor) search Yourprop’s personal vehicle currently parked in the Company parking lot for digital evidence? Support your answer. a. Pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution‚ Mr. Yourprop and all other employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy which would prevent me and his supervisor from freely searching his vehicle. The easiest and most efficient way that would prevent questions of immiscibility in court and protect the company from legal
Premium United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Police
Introduction The case of Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575‚ [2002] HCA 56 raised the legal principle of defamation and its application when committed over the internet. In this instance‚ an article published on 30 October 2000 in a weekly financial magazine‚ a magazine which in turn was published by Dow Jones & Company Inc (‘Dow Jones’). The article‚ entitled ‘Unholy Gains’ alleged that Joseph Gutnick (‘Gutnick’) was connected to a jailed money launderer and tax evader and was
Premium Jury United States Law
John D.R. Leonard v. PepsiCo‚ INC. 1. (a)What are the facts and (b) sources of law in this case? a. Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle‚ Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion‚ titled "Pepsi Stuff‚" attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign‚ PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the Pepsi Generation‚’ in order to gain
Premium Contract