Wunnicke case‚ in some circumstances a state discriminatory means regulation can survive a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge. In Maine v. Taylor‚ the Supreme Court upheld a Maine prohibition on the importation of live-baitfish for fear of parasites not common to Main fisheries. As the author of the majority opinion of this case‚ Justice Blackmun wrote that discriminatory laws may be upheld only if they serve “legitimate
Premium Vaccine Vaccination Immune system
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Case No. 81-1505 Transamerica Oil Corporation‚ Plaintiff-Appellee‚ v. Lynes‚ Inc. and Baker International Corporation‚ Defendants-Appellants. 723F.2d 758; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 14288; 37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1076 ------------------------------------------------- December 21‚ 1983 PROCEDURAL POSTURE Plaintiff brought suit under the Kansas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to recover damages resulting from the breach of an
Premium Warranty Appeal Jury
Case Report: AT&T: Twenty Years of Change AT&T Case depicts the history of 130 years old giant company‚ which served its customers in telecommunications area. From its foundation by Graham Bell in 1875 to the restructuring decision in 2000‚ the company had many key events to be studied in terms of several strategic management point of views. This paper mainly focuses on external environment issues and corporate-level strategies. Analysis with respect to Corporate-Level Strategy After the foundation
Premium Competition Bell System Strategic management
her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted. (Emphasis and underscoring ours.) 6. In the present case unfortunately‚ defendants did not even state in the subject motion what evidence they intend to present if the Honorable Court grants their motion. Defendants’ averment that they have strong
Premium Law Court Contract
The conviction of a Royal Marine for murdering an injured Afghan insurgent should not "besmirch" the organisation‚ Prime Minister David Cameron has said. Speaking to marines at Downing Street‚ Mr Cameron said the "appalling" case in no way represented the spirit and proud history of the Royal Marines. The sergeant‚ identified only as Marine A‚ was convicted over the shooting of the unknown man in 2011 on Friday.The conviction of a Royal Marine for murdering an injured Afghan insurgent should
Premium Royal Marines Marine United States Marine Corps
[GRN 110249 August 21‚ 1997] ALFREDO TANO‚ BALDOMERO TANO‚ DANILO TANO‚ ROMUALDO TANO‚ TEOCENES MIDELLO‚ ANGEL DE MESA‚ EULOGIO TREMOCHA‚ FELIPE ONGONION‚ JR.‚ ANDRES LINIJAN‚ ROBERT LIM‚ VIRGINIA LIM‚ FELIMON DE MESA‚ GENEROSO ARAGON‚ TEODORICO ANDRE‚ ROMULO DEL ROSARIO‚ CHOLITO ANDRE‚ ERICK MONTANO‚ ANDRES OLIVA‚ VITTORIO SALVADOR‚ LEOPOLDO ARAGON‚ RAFAEL RIBA‚ ALEJANDRO LEONILA‚ JOSE DAMACINTO‚ RAMIRO MANAEG‚ RUBEN MARGATE‚ ROBERTO REYES‚ DANILO PANGARUTAN‚ NOE GOLPAN‚ ESTANISLAO ROMERO‚ NICANOR
Premium Trial court Wound
Case 1: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green‚ the Supreme Court holds that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by showing‚ for example‚ in a hiring case that: (1) the charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) the job was not offered to him or her; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements‚ the employer must
Premium Law United States Discrimination
Contribution Required Of Excess Insurer Where It Did Not Consent To Settlement In February‚ the California Court of Appeal ruled in Doe Run Resources Corp v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York that an excess insurer did not have to contribute to the settlement where the insured failed to obtain its consent before signing the settlement agreement. The case involved a complaint filed in 2001 by residents of Herculaneum‚ Missouri alleging that the defendant mining-company‚ Doe Run’s‚ lead and cadium smelting
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Law
Section A Question 1) a) In the case of Donohue v Stevenson[1]‚ Donohue won the case. The ratio decidendi in the case was that the liability of negligence did not depend on the contractual relationship and that Stevenson owed the duty of care to Donohue as a manufacturer‚ not to cause foreseeable injuries to the users of the products. As there was an owed duty‚ Stevenson failed to practice the appropriate standard of care and in turn‚ the negligent act had caused the injuries to Donohue. Therefore
Premium Contract Contract law Tort
op y 9-702-442 REV: JANUARY 27‚ 2004 DAVID B. YOFFIE tC Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century For over a century‚ Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola vied for “throat share” of the world’s beverage market. The most intense battles of the cola wars were fought over the $60-billion industry in the United States‚ where the average American consumed 53 gallons of carbonated soft drinks (CSD) per year. In a “carefully waged competitive struggle‚” from 1975 to 1995 both
Premium Coca-Cola Pepsi