U.S. v. Fior D ’Italia‚ Inc. 536 U.S. 238‚ 122 S.Ct. 2117 U.S.‚2002. June 17‚ 2002 (Approx. 17 pages) |[pic] | 536 U.S. 238‚ 122 S.Ct. 2117‚ 153 L.Ed.2d 280‚ 89 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-2883‚ 70 USLW 4539‚ 70 USLW 4565‚ 2002-2 USTC P 50‚459‚ 2002-2 C.B. 875‚ Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16736B‚ 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5315‚ 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6699‚ 15 Fla. L. Weekly
Premium Internal Revenue Service Taxation in the United States Tax
Johnson Bank v. George Korbakes & Co.‚ LLP Commercial Law 03/17/2013 Facts of the case Brandon Apparel Group‚ Inc. (“Brandon”) was involved in the business of manufacturing and sales of casual apparel as well as licensed other companies to manufacture‚ distribute and sell its clothing lines. Additionally‚ Brandon had licensing agreements with several colleges‚ universities‚ and sports organizations‚ such as the National Football League. In 1997 Brandon borrowed funds from Johnson
Premium Civil procedure Finance Plaintiff
Crown Awards‚ Inc. v. Discount Trophy & Co.‚ Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals‚ Second Circuit 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8540 (2009) Material Facts of the Case: Crown Awards is a retailer of awards and trophies sold through mail order catalogs and via the Internet. Crown designed and sold a diamond-shaped spinning trophy for which it owned two copyright registrations. Discount Trophy is one of Crown’s competitors‚ and it sold a trophy that was substantially similar to Crown’s Spin Trophy. Crown
Premium Copyright infringement Copyright
Walmart Stores‚ Inc V. Cockrell Background: On November 6‚ 1996‚ Karl Cockrell went to a Walmart store with his parents. As he was leaving the store the loss-prevention officer for Walmart‚ Raymond Navarro‚ stopped him and asked him to follow him to the manager’s room. Once at the office the loss-prevention officer conducted a thorough search and even asked Karl Cockrell to take off a surgical bandage that he had on his abdomen. Even after Karl Cockrell’s explanation that the bandage covered a
Free Appellate court Court Trial court
Operations Management Great Northern Bunk Beds‚ Inc. Introduction Deciding whether to invest or not is a complicated task for today’s companies. Managers need to make thorough studies‚ analysing additional costs and revenues‚ in order to be able to make the most reasonable decision. A big investment implies a great expenditure and‚ generally‚ a late return. If a company does not consider thoroughly the requirements and the outcomes of a particular investment‚ the organization may suffer
Premium Time Mathematics Year
Liquormart Inc. V. Rhode Island In the United Sates there have always been many controversies about both the selling and consuming of alcoholic beverages. From decades ago the topic of alcohol was still being discussed on whether or not it should be complete banned or more closely regulated. Alcohol is a very dangerous substance when mistreated. Alcohol laws are to protect both an individual person and the people in a society. When it comes to alcohol and how it should be regulated people’s views
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Prohibition in the United States
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
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
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