Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants BobbsMerrillCo. v. Straus ArgueDateA March 12 ArgueDateB 13 ArgueYear 1908 DecideDate June 1 DecideYear 1908 FullName BobbsMerrill Company v. Straus, et al. doing business as R.H. Macy & Company USVol 210 USPage 339 Citation 28 S. Ct. 722 52 L. Ed. 1086 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1513 6 Ohio L. Rep. 323 Prior Judgment for defendants, 139 F. 155 S.D.N.Y. 1905 affirmed, 147 F. 15 2nd Cir. 1906 Subsequent None Holding Copyright holders did not have the statutory right to control the price of subsequent resales of lawfully purchased copies of their work. Second Circuit affirmed. SCOTUS 1906 1909 Majority Day JoinMajority unanimous LawsApplied U.S. Rev. Stat. 4952, 4965, 4970 Copyright Act of 1897 BobbsMerrillCo. v. Straus , ussc 210 339 1908 , was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court decision concerning the scope of rights accorded owners of a copyright . This was a case of first impression concerning whether the copyright law s permit an owner to control a purchaser s subsequent sale of a copyrighted work. The court stated the issue as Does the sole right to vend named in 4952 secure to the owner of the copyright the right, after a sale of the book to a purchaser, to restrict future sales of the book at retail, to the right to sell it at a certain price per copy, because of a notice in the book that a sale at a different price will be treated as an infringement, which notice has been brought home to one undertaking to sell for less than the named sum? The case centered around the publisher setting additional terms not specifically ... links wikisource BobbsMerrill Company v. Straus http laws.findlaw.com us 210 339.html Full text ... Act of 1976 . Facts BobbsMerrill Company sold a copyrighted novel, The Castaway by Hallie ... printed immediately below the copyright notice. The defendants, Macy s R.H. Macy & Co. , purchased ... also Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. Lanza Research Intl , Ussc 523 135 1998 Bauer & Cie. v. O Donnell ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Villalba vMerrill Lynch & Co Inc court Employment Appeal Tribunal image Paternoster Square.jpg date decided full name citations judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions transcripts http www.bailii.org uk cases UKEAT 2006 0223 05 3103.html Full transcript from Balii keywords Villalba vMerrill Lynch & Co Inc 2007 http www.bailii.org uk cases UKEAT 2006 0223 05 3103.html ICR 469 is a UK labour law case, concerning sex discrimination and equal pay . It was the largest claim to be lodged in the United Kingdom, but was rejected in the Employment Tribunal and on appeal. Facts Stephanie Villalba was the daughter of a former head of Merrill Lynch s France operations, and had many family members working with the company. She too joined as a graduate and by 2002 had become the Market Executive for Europe . She reported to a Mr Raymundo Yu, who quickly formed the view that Ms Villalba was not flexible in taking criticism or advice on board. Late 2002 was a bad time in the markets, and Mr Yu appointed a Mr Ausuf Abbas, who took over some of Ms Villalba s functions. From then, followed some incidents, which the Tribunal found amounted to less than Ms Villalba had alleged. One was an email where Mr Abbas said Ms Villalba was high maintenance . This was found simply to mean requiring considerable management time and effort . A second was that on a jet airplane jet flight between Frankfurt and Milan , Villalba got the last seat, near the drinks cabinet, and was expected to pour drinks for the fellow travellers. She alleged she was being made to feel like a flight attendant, but it was found that anybody who had sat there would have had to do the same. Feeling isolated, Ms Villalba confided in the Human Resources head Ms Pauline Cahill and made according to the tribunal a tentative allegation of sex discrimination , that she was not being treated as an equal ... at the end of July. Bonuses are 75 80 of pay at Merrill Lynch, and the tribunal noted there is a culture ... more details
Infobox rail line name color logo logo width 122 type First generation streetcar system status locale Merrill, Wisconsin start Stuyvesant St. end Cottage St. open 1889 close 1921 owner Merrill Railway & Lighting Co operator Merrill Railway & Lighting Co character depot stock linelength convert 2 mi km 1 abbr on tracklength notrack gauge RailGauge sg Standard gauge el Unknown Voltage Two Wire Overhead lines minradius ? speed elevation map map state collapsed The Merrill Railway & Lighting Co was set up in 1889. During the first months of operation, problems with poor bonding of the track led to the electrocution of several animals. This led the company to develop the first use by a trolley company of a second suspended wire for return power. The company experimented with one of the earliest trolleybus operations in 1913. Already experienced with two wire operation it purchased an 18 passenger vehicle from the Field Electric Bus Company . The use of the trolleybus avoided the need to construct three complex railroad crossings. The service was discontinued in less than a year. The company was absorbed by the Wisconsin Valley Electric Company in 1916. The franchise ended in 1919 and the company was offered to the City for 1. The offer not being accepted, the service was replaced by buses of the affiliated Valley Transit Company in 1921. Route Main St Junction of Stuyvesant St. , Mill St, 1st St., 2nd St. Polk St, 1st St., West Main Junction of Cottage . Passing loops at Second St between Scott and Cleveland and on Polk. Car Barn at south end of Polk. Equipment Original Equipment unknown. 1896 Second hand car built by Jones in 1892 purchased. 1898 Second hand car built by American in 1893 purchased from TMERL 1898 Second hand car built by Pullman in 1893 purchased from TMERL 1903 Second hand car built by American in 1893 purchased from Aurora Ill. ref Badger Traction Published by Central Electric Railfans Association 1969 Library of Congress Catalog 70 93226 ref Referenc ... more details
Merrill Stevens Drydock & Repair Co. is a shipbuilding and drydock company currently based in Miami, Florida Miami , Florida . ref http www.merrillstevens.com contact location Location . Merrill Stevens. Retrieved on January 9, 2010. ref The company was incorporated in 1885 in Jacksonville, Florida by James Eugene Merrill , and was located along the St. Johns River . ref name Colton cite web last Colton first Tim url http www.coltoncompany.com shipbldg ussbldrs prewwii shipyards atlantic merrillstevens.htm title Merrill Stevens Shipbuilding Corp., Jacksonville FL date accessdate 2008 01 17 archiveurl http web.archive.org web 20071112142419 http coltoncompany.com shipbldg ussbldrs prewwii shipyards atlantic merrillstevens.htm Bot retrieved archive archivedate 2007 11 12 ref According to the company, it was the largest Atlantic Ocean Atlantic shipyard south of Norfolk, Virginia during World War II . ref name MSweb cite web url http www.merrillstevens.com index.cfm id 6.html title Our Story publisher Merrill Stevens accessdate 2008 01 17 ref References Reflist Refbegin Refend External links http www.merrillstevens.com Merrill Stevens US company stub Category Companies established in 1885 Category Companies based in Miami, Florida Category Shipbuilding companies of the United States ... more details
V. Bessel and Co. was a musical firm founded in 1869 in St Petersburg by Vasily Bessel Vasily Vasil yevich Bessel 1843 1907 . His brother N. V. Bessel was a co owner of the firm. The firm and a print shop since 1871 published works by prominent Russian composers, notably Pyotr Tchaikovsky , Anton Rubinstein , Alexander Dargomyzhsky and the members of the New Russian Musical School Modest Musorgsky , Nikolai Rimsky Korsakov Nikolay Rimsky Korsakov , C sar Cui , Mily Balakirev , and Alexander Borodin . The firm issued a weekly magazine Muzykal ny listok The Musical Leaf from September 3, 1872 to June 5, 1877, and Muzykal noye obozrenie The musical revue 1885 1888 . External links http www.ripm.org journal info.php?ABB MUL Muzykal ny listok Category Music publishing companies Bessel Category Opera publishers Bessel Category Publishing companies established in 1869 ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Albrecht v. Herald Co. ArgueDate November 9 ArgueYear 1967 DecideDate March 4 DecideYear 1968 FullName Lester J. Albrecht v. Herald Co., DBA Globe Democrat Publishing Co. USVol 390 USPage 145 Citation 88 S.Ct. 869 19 L.Ed.2d 998 Prior Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Subsequent Holding Wholesalers cannot require franchisees and retailers of their products to sell items at a certain price. SCOTUS 1967 1969 Majority White JoinMajority Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas, Marshall Concurrence Douglas Dissent Harlan Dissent2 Stewart JoinDissent2 Harlan LawsApplied Clayton Antitrust Act , usc 15 15 Sherman Antitrust Act , usc 15 1 Overruled State Oil Co. v. Khan 1997 Albrecht v. Herald Co. , 390 U.S. 145 1968 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court , which held that wholesalers could not require franchisees and retailers of their products to Resale price maintenance sell items at a certain price advertisements regarding sales therefore always included the language Available at participating retailers only . This broad rule was reversed in 1997 by State Oil Co. v. Khan , which held that, such price setting was not inherantly ..., volume 390 Kiefer Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc. 1951 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. 1990 References Reflist Further reading cite journal last Blair first Roger D. last2 Kaserman first2 ... issn 19429886 url accessdate quote small Cited by the Supreme Court in State Oil Co. v. Khan 1997 . small ... by Albrecht. When Albrecht exceeded that price, Herald Co. protested to him, and then informed Albrecht s subscribers that it would itself deliver the paper at the lower price. Herald Co. engaged ... to direct delivery by Herald. Herald Co. later turned these customers over, without cost, to another ... the route if Albrecht discontinued his pricing practice. Herald Co. told Albrecht that he could have ... issue pages 209 issn 00247081 url accessdate quote External links wikisource Albrecht v. Herald Company ... more details
Orphan date April 2011 Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. , case citation 183 F.2d 811 1950 , was a legal case case decided by the D.C. Circuit that first recognized a wife s right to bring a cause of action for loss of consortium . ref Henderson, J.A., et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY 2007, p. 321 ref References reflist Category Tort law Category 1950 in United States case law ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Skidmore v. Swift & Co. ArgueDate October 13 ArgueYear 1944 DecideDate December 4 DecideYear 1944 FullName John Skidmore, et al. v. Swift & Company USVol 323 USPage 134 Citation 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 Prior Judgment for defendant, 53 F.Supp. 1020 United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas N.D. Texas 1942 affirmed, 136 F.2d 112 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 5th Cir. 1943 Subsequent Holding Nothing in the Fair Labor Standards Act or Court holdings precludes waiting time from also being working time. Reversed and remanded. SCOTUS 1943 1945 Majority Jackson JoinMajority Concurrence Concurrence2 Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 NotParticipating LawsApplied Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 . Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , Case citation 323 U.S. 134 1944 was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that an administrative agency s interpretative rules will be given deference according to their persuasiveness. Background of the case Seven employees of the Swift & Company packing plant at Fort Worth, Texas brought an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys fees, totaling approximately 77,000. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas District Court rendered judgment denying this claim wholly, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 5th Circuit affirmed. Issue The case examined the deference that was due to the United States administrative law interpretative rules of an Independent agencies of the United ... Skidmore V. Swift & Co. Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States administrative ... in Christensen v. Harris County , argued that Skidmore has no place post Chevron deference Chevron ... deference. External links wikisource Skidmore v. Swift & Company Caselaw source case Skidmore v. Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134 1944 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?court US&vol ... more details
V. Su rez Group is one of Puerto Rico s largest commercial groups with revenues in excess of 500M. Founded in 1943 the organization has grown and diversified. Subsidiaries Today V. Su rez Group is diversified into three distinct businesses V. Su rez Division The leading consumer product distribution entity in Puerto Rico with special interests in beverage and provision distribution. Additionally the division runs El Horreo , a consumer retail wine store. V.Su rez Investment Co. A diversified investment management company focused on maximizing investment income through a variety of investment instruments both within and outside of Puerto Rico. V.Su rez Real Estate Group A real estate development and management company focused principally on the warehouse and office segments of the market. Each of these three operating entities is supported by a centralized corporate services group composed of Executive Management, MIS, Finance & Accounting and Human Resources. The corporate services group ensures that managerial systems and processes are in place, and that adequate resources are allocated against business market opportunities to ensure success and build stakeholder value. External links http www.vsuarez.com Official Site Category Companies of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Glidden Co. v. Zdanok ArgueDate February 21 ArgueDateB 26 ArgueYear 1962 DecideDate June 25 DecideYear 1962 FullName Glidden Company v. Olga Zdanok, John Zacharczyk, Mary A. Hackett, Quitman Williams, and Marcelle Kreischer Durkee Famous Foods Division, a Foreign Corporation and Benny Lurk v. United States Citation 82 S. Ct. 1459 8 L. Ed. 2d 671 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2139 45 Lab. Cas. CCH P17,685 50 L.R.R.M. 2693 USVol 370 USPage 530 Prior 288 F.2d 99, 47 L.R.R.M. BNA 2865, 90 A.L.R.2d 965, 42 Lab.Cas. P 16,855 2nd Cir. 1961 185 F.Supp. 441, 46 L.R.R.M. BNA 2584, 40 Lab.Cas. P 66,747 S.D.N.Y. 1961 28 F.R.D. 346, 4 Fed.R.Serv.2d 460 S.D.N.Y. 1961 296 F.2d 360, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 238 D.C. Cir. 1961 Subsequent 371 U.S. 854, 83 S.Ct. 14, 9 L.Ed.2d 93 Rehearing denied QuestionsPresented Whether the judgment in either case was vitiated by the respective participation of the judges named. Holding That as the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals are courts created under Article III of the Constitution and their judges are constitutionally protected in tenure and compensation, the designation of judges from those courts to sit on Courts of Appeals ... Const. Article III, 1 2 Superseded 96 Stat. 25, 110 a 1 2 Overruled Glidden Co. v. Zdanok consolidated with Lurk v. United States , ussc 370 530 1962 , is a Supreme Court of the United States United States ... . ref Glidden Co. v. Zdanok , ussc 370 530 1962 . ref Background In Ex parte Bakelite Corp. , ussc 279 438 1929 , and Williams v. United States 1933 Williams v. United States , ussc 289 553 1933 ... Co. v. Zdanok , 370 U.S. 530, 602, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1500 1962 Quote The Court does great mischief ... In United States v. Coe, for example, the Court sustained the authority of the Court of Private Land .... What is done will, I fear, plague us for years. William O. Douglas Justice Douglas Glidden Co. v. Zdanok , 370 U.S. 530, 606, n.11, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1502, n.11 1962 Subsequent developments In response ... more details
Smyth v. Pillsbury Co. Background Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company , 914 F. Supp. 97 E.D. Pa. 1996 was decided on January 18, 1996 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania . ref name Smyth Michael A. Smyth v. The Pillsbury Company , 914 F. Supp. 97 E.D. Pa. 1996 ref Michael A. Smyth was a regional operations manager at the Pillsbury Company. Smyth had a company email account that he was able to access from work and home. Pillsbury, on multiple occasions, told its employees that all email communications were private, confidential, and that there was no danger of the messages being intercepted and used as grounds for discipline or termination. In October of 1994, while at home, Smyth received emails from his supervisor and, thinking that his replies would not be intercepted or used against him, made threatening comments. Pillsbury intercepted the emails and, despite the previous assurances made to the employees, terminated him. Smyth brought a wrongful discharge suit against Pillsbury, claiming that his right to privacy had been violated when his emails were intercepted. Ruling of the Court Charles R. Weiner Judge Charles R. Weiner presided over the trial and authored the court ... or violates a clear mandate of public policy. ref name Borse Borse v. Piece Goods Shop, Inc. , 963 ... right, duties and responsibilities. ref name Geary Geary v. United States Steel Corp. , 456 Pa ... are an employee may not be fired for serving jury duty ref Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc. , 386 A.2d 119 1978 ref , employment may not be denied to a person with a prior conviction ref Hunter v ... for reporting federal regulation violations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ref Field v. Philadelphia ... was made and relied upon. ref Paul v. Lankenau Hospital , 569 A.2d 346 1990 ref Implications ... or illegal activity. ref Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. , 201 N.J. 300 N.J. 2010 ref ... more details
Macmillan Co. v. King, 223 F. 862 United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts D. Mass 1914 was a copyright infringement case brought by a publisher of a two volume economics textbook written by a Harvard University professor in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts . Note that this case was decided under previous statutory law and the law of fair use has evolved considerably since this case was decided. The facts The defendant was a private tutor that tutored students for preparation for their exams at Harvard. The defendant prepared one page long notes that were given at each conference the tutor had with his pupils to be used by his pupils in their studying for the examination. The type written notes often followed the outline of the books each student was required to purchase a copy of the book for the course they were taking. The notes were not for distribution to anyone else and the tutor stated that he demanded that the students return the typewritten looseleaf notes after they had completed their examinations in the course. The defendant s claim was that these notes were fair use . The holding The court analyzed the content of the notes and found that while they were not copies of the book, they had condensed the book in a manner that made it clear that the notes were nothing more than abridged versions of portions of the book. The summary of a chapter might be one paragraph long within that paragraph it was structured in the same manner as the book. There were quotations from the book, though usually not more than one sentence long. The language used in the notes were similar to the language used in the textbooks. Sometimes there would be words without quotations taken from the textbooks, but this was never more than a few words long. As District Judge Dodge states in his reasons from 865 66 The words so quoted are taken direct from the book. Instances of such quotation are frequent throughout the sheets. They are generally ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. ArgueDate January 16 ArgueYear 1964 DecideDate March 9 DecideYear 1964 FullName Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. USVol 376 USPage 225 Citation 84 S.Ct. 784 11 L.Ed.2d 661 Prior Judgment for plaintiff, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois judgment affirmed, Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit certiorari granted, 374 ... One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution wikisource Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. , Case ... success, according to the Supreme Court s opinion. ref Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. , 376 ... due to the identical appearance of the lamps. ref name appellate decision Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., CA 7, 313 F.2d 115. ref The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether ... domain and may be made and sold by whoever chooses to do so, citing Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. 1938 . ref name Black231 Black, 231. ref The lower courts had erred by using Illinois unfair competition law to effectively give Stiffel Co. a patent monopoly on its unpatented lamp. The Court ... of another. ref name Harlan concurrence Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 1964 .... v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. ref 489 U.S. 141 1989 . ref Stiffel Co. survived the setback, continuing ... be used to prevent Sears from copying it. Background Stiffel Co. was a lamp manufacturer that had created ..., and with lamp fixtures along the outside of the tube. Stiffel Co. had secured a patent mechanical ..., Roebuck and Company Sears, Roebuck & Co. department store put on the market copies of the lamp. Stiffel Co. brought suit against Sears, for patent infringement and for unfair competition under Illinois ... to Stiffel Co. Image Stiffel.jpg 200px thumb left The Stiffel pole lamp U.S. Design Pat. No. 180,251 ... mi hb4360 is 200007 ai n15214412 Main Street Pulls the Plug on Stiffel Co ., Meyer, Nancy, HFN The Weekly ... also International News Service v. Associated Press 1918 Compco Corp. v. Day Brite Lighting, Inc. 1964 ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ArgueDate October 10 ArgueYear 1938 DecideDate November 14 DecideYear 1938 FullName Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. USVol 305 USPage 111 Citation Prior Case dismissed in favor of defendant, Delaware district court, 1935 dismissal upheld, Circuit Court of Appeals, 1936 upon rehearing, dismissal vacated and mandate sent to district court, Circuit Court of Appeals, 1936 certiorari denied, U.S. Supreme Court 302 U.S. 733 , 58 S.Ct. 120 injunction entered per mandate in favor of plaintiff, 1938, Delaware district court mandate clarified , Circuit Court of Appeals, 1938 certiorari granted, U.S. Supreme Court, 304 U.S. 586 , 58 S.Ct. 1052. Subsequent Holding After a patent expires or becomes invalid, the patent holder cannot use unfair competition law to prevent a rival from selling goods of the same shape under the same non trademarked name. SCOTUS 1938 Majority Louis Brandeis JoinMajority Hughes, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo, Black, Reed Dissent McReynolds JoinDissent Butler LawsApplied Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. , Case citation ... of KELLOGG CO. v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. Breakfast with Brandeis , p. 1, Retrieved on 15 December ... cgi viewcontent.cgi?article 1028&context graeme dinwoodie The Story of KELLOGG CO. v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. Breakfast with Brandeis , p. 3, Retrieved on 15 December 2008. ref Nevertheless, the cereal ... CO. v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. Breakfast with Brandeis , p. 5, Retrieved on 15 December 2008. ref In 1927 ... interested. ref name majority opinion Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. , 305 U.S. 111, 122 ... Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ref Subsequent events Kellogg has become a foundation of the functionality ... graeme dinwoodie The Story of KELLOGG CO. v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. Breakfast with Brandeis , p. 22 ... coauthors year 1990 month title Preemption of Direct Molding Statutes Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft ..., as part of the Lanham Act . References reflist External links wikisource Kellogg Company v. National ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit ArgueDate January 18 ArgueYear 2006 DecideDate March 21 DecideYear 2006 FullName Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Shadi Dabit USVol 547 USPage 71 Citation 126 S. Ct. 1503 164 L. Ed. 2d 179 2006 ... in part, sub nom., Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. , 395 Federal Reporter Federal ... Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v ... Merrill Lynch again moved for dismissal, which was granted by Senior Judge Milton Pollack , on the grounds that the claims were squarely within SLUSA s ambit. ref In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research ... claims be brought in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. ref Dabit v. Merrill Lynch ... DEFAULTSORT Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. V. Dabit Category United States Supreme Court ... District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma W.D. Okla. dismissed, sub nom., In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig. , 2003 Westlaw WL 1872820 United States District Court ... and the policies behind it. Facts In 2002, the investment bank ing firm Merrill Lynch became ... it to render biased investment advice. Though Merrill Lynch settled that dispute, the investigation ... Dabit, a former Merrill Lynch stock broker , in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma . Class action allegations Dabit claimed that Merrill Lynch had manipulated stock prices by disseminating ... s complaint claimed damages on behalf of himself and all class members against Merrill Lynch under ... was defined as including all former or current brokers who, while employed by Merrill Lynch ... motion to dismiss Merrill Lynch motion to dismiss moved to dismiss the class action, arguing that it was preempted ... v. Manor Drug Stores , 421 U.S. 723 1975 , which ruled that only those suffering direct loss from ... s amended complaint alleged that Merrill Lynch had fraudulently induced the stockholders to retain ... more details
Merrill may refer to Places In the United States Merrill Field Merrill Airfield, Anchorage, Alaska Merrill, Iowa Merrill, Maine Merrill, Michigan Merrill, Mississippi , an unincorporated community near Lucedale in George County, Mississippi George County Merrill, Oregon Merrill, Wisconsin Merrill town , Wisconsin Merrill Township, Michigan Merrill Township, North Dakota Merrill College at the University of California, Santa Cruz People Aaron S. Merrill , US Navy rear admiral during World War II Amanda Merrill , American Democratic member of the New Hampshire Senate Charles E. Merrill , American philanthropist, stockbroker, and co founder of Merrill Lynch Charles E. Merrill Jr. , American educator Elmer Drew Merrill , botanist Elmer Truesdell Merrill , classical scholar Eugene H. Merrill academic Eugene H. Merrill politician Frank Merrill , US Army major general commander of Merrill s Marauders George P. Merrill , American chemist, geologist and pedologist, winner of the 1922 J. Lawrence Smith Medal Helen Merrill , American Jazz vocalist James Merrill , American poet Jan Merrill , American middle distance runner Kieth Merrill , American filmmaker Lewis Merrill , US Army officer in civil war later fought against KKK. Monique Merrill , American ski mountaineer Nathaniel Merrill , American stage director and opera director Philip Merrill , American diplomat, publisher, banker, and philanthropist Richard B. Merrill , American inventor of Foveon X3 sensor Robert Merrill , American operatic baritone singer Russel Merrill , US Navy pilot during World War I, and pioneer of aviation in Alaska Samuel Ingham Merrill , American industrialist, founder of Los Angeles YMCA Merrill Cook , Utah politician Beverly Ann Merrill , star of The Real Housewives of New Jersey Other uses Merrill Lynch Skidmore, Owings and Merrill , architectural firm USS Merrill DD 976 USS Merrill DD 976 disambig de Merrill fr Merrill it Merrill nl Merrill pl Merrill pt Merrill vo Merrill ... more details
orphan date January 2010 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. , case citation 313 U.S. 487 1941 , was a legal case case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that applied the choice of law principles of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins to conflicts between laws of different states for cases sitting in federal court on diversity jurisdiction . The court held that a federal court sitting in diversity should apply the laws of the forum state. ref Yeazell, S.C. Civil Procedure, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY 2008, p. 231 ref See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 313 References reflist Category United States Supreme Court cases Category Diversity jurisdiction case law Category 1941 in United States case law Category United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes ... more details
National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. , case citation 337 U.S. 582 1949 , was a legal case case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. 1332 d . 1332 d treats citizens of United States territories as citizens of a state for the purpose of establishing diversity jurisdiction . ref Yeazell, S.C. Civil Procedure, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY 2008, p. 197 ref See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 337 References reflist Category Civil procedure Category Jurisdiction Category 1949 in United States case law ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd court House of Lords image With the beatles side 1.JPG date decided full name citations 1960 AC 87 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Lord Somervell transcripts keywords Consideration , adequacy, copyright Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd 1960 AC 87 is an important English contract law case, where the House of Lords confirmed the traditional doctrine that consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Facts Chappell & Co. owned the copyright to Rockin shoes by The King Brothers . Nestle was giving away records of it to people who sent in three wrappers from 6d chocolate bars, as well as 1s 6d. The Copyright Act 1956 s 8 said a 6.25 royalty needed to be paid on the ordinary retail selling price to the owners of copyrights. Nestle said 1s 6d was the ordinary retail selling price, but Chappell & Co argued that it should be more and sought an injunction for breach of CA 1956 s 8. In this way the question arose as to whether the wrappers were Consideration in English law consideration for the records. Upjohn granted an injunction. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and Chappell & Co appealed. Judgment ... entitling a member to buy at a co operative store. I think they are part of the consideration ... Keith delivered dissenting judgments. See also Clist consideration Bret v JS 1600 Cro Eliz 756, love and affection not good consideration Evans v Llewellin 1787 1 Cox CC 333, share of estate sale set aside on grounds of very low price Thomas v Thomas 1842 2 QB 851, there must be sufficient consideration in the eyes of the law Shadwell v Shadwell 1860 http www.bailii.org ew cases EWHC CP 1860 ... to perform an act already undertaken can be implied Fry v Lane 1888 40 ChD 312, suggested ... Batsakis v. Demotsis , 226 S.W.2d 673 1949 , an American case in which the court held that a few drachma ... 1986 Notes reflist 2 External links http www.youtube.com watch?v gBmsSVnbSK8 Clip of the record from ... more details
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. , 549 U.S. 312 2007 , was an antitrust case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States . Factual background Both parties operated sawmills Ross Simmons was driven out of business by what it complained was Weyerhaeuser s attempted monopolization of the market. The theory was predatory buying a purchaser buys so much of a given raw material that it drives up the price and thereby excludes less pecunious rivals who depend on the same raw material. Decision The Supreme Court rejected the theory on a rule of reason analysis, noting that there are any number of legitimate business strategies that involve buying large quantities of raw materials. A plaintiff alleging predatory buying must therefore prove and Ross Simmons had not that the defendant caused the price to rise, and that the defendant is likely to recoup the costs incurred in such a scheme. The court s decision symmetrized its case law, with Weyerhaeuser and Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. applying identical standards to predatory buying and predatory selling claims respectively. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 549 External links http www.law.cornell.edu supct html 05 381.ZS.html Text of the decision Category United States antitrust case law Category 2007 in United States case law Category Article Feedback 5 Law stub ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. ArgueDate October 14 15 ArgueYear 1954 DecideDate February 28 DecideYear 1955 FullName Wilburn Boat Co. et al. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. Docket USVol USPage CitationNew 348 U.S. 310 1955 Prior Subsequent Holding Admiralty law which held that state law, rather than federal admiralty law should govern marine insurance contracts SCOTUS 1955 1956 Majority JoinMajority Concurrence Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 Dissent3 LawsApplied Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 ref http supreme.justia.com us 348 310 ref decided Feb. 28, 1955 is a Supreme Court of the United States decision in admiralty law which held that state law, rather than federal admiralty law should govern marine insurance contracts. Background Appellants J.F. Wilburn, J. H. Wilburn, and L. G. Wilburn and, The Wilburn Boat Company, and Oklahoma based corporation, obtained a marine insurance policy from the Fireman s Fund Insurance Company Fireman s Fund Insurance Company for liability coverage for fire among other things, of a vessel called the Wanderer. The Wanderer was moored in an artificial lake called Lake Texoma which bordered the states of Texas and Oklahoma. While moored in Lake Texoma the vessel was completely destroyed by a fire. The Wilburn Boat Company sought recovery for their loss, but Fireman s Fund denied liability based on The Wilburn Boat Company s failure to strictly comply with terms of the contract. Terms of the contract provided under warranties, that without written consent of the insurer the vessel could not be transferred, assigned, hired, or chartered and must be used solely for pleasure ...&oi scholarr Wilburn Boat Co. et al. v. Fireman s Fund Ins. Co. Category United States Supreme Court ... Boat Co. Furthermore, the vessel had been pledged as collateral on two occasions once to Citizen s National ... The Court cited to a previous Supreme Court decision, Paul v. Virginia, and concluded that marine insurance ... more details
The Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co. , 14 F.Supp.2d 154 1998 is a district court case from Massachusetts holding that an individual shop within a mall does not qualify as a building under Wikisource 17 U.S.C. 101 17 U.S.C. 101 . The case clarifies the scope of the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act AWCPA . ref cite journal title Copyright Protection for Architectural Works How Can Creative Commons Encourage Collaboration Among Socially Responsible Architects? journal ABA SciTech Lawyer year 2007 first Kathryn last Frankel coauthors volume 3 issue 4 pages 12 id url format accessdate 2010 04 05 ref Background A year after the Yankee Candle Company opened a store in Holyoke, Massachusetts , the New England Candle Company opened a store in Enfield, Connecticut that looked remarkably similar and used many of the same design elements as the Yankee Candle store. ref name YankeeCandle cite court litigants Yankee Candle Co., Inc. v. New England Candle Co., Inc. vol 14 reporter F.Supp.2d opinion 154 pinpoint court D.Mass. date 1998 url http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 2468963775610038891 quote ref On September 9, 1996, Yankee Candle filed suit against New England Candle, alleging copyright and trade dress infringement. Yankee Candle claimed that copyright protection for both the blueprints and the actual design of the Holyoke store that was embodied in the blueprints. Opinion of the court The court considered the scope of the term building under 17 U.S.C. 101 s definition of architectural work. The court looked at dictionary definitions of building and the Code of Federal Regulations , ref http www.law.cornell.edu copyright regulations 202.11.html 37 C.F.R. 202.11 b 2 ref and found that the Yankee Candle store was an internal structure, not a building. ref name YankeeCandle Since Yankee Candle did not design the walls or ceilings of the store, Yankee ... counts. References references DEFAULTSORT Yankee Candle Co Category United States copyright case law ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. ArgueDate May 5 ArgueYear 1916 DecideDate May 22 DecideYear 1916 FullName American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. USVol 241 USPage 257 Citation 36 S. Ct. 585 60 L. Ed. 987 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1751 Prior On writ of error from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Subsequent Holding Where one party wrongs another by making statements to the effect that an article sold by the latter infringes the former s patent, this is a question of state law and not federal patent law, and therefore 1331 grants no jurisdiction to federal district courts. SCOTUS 1914 1916 Majority Holmes JoinMajority White, Pitney, Van Devanter, McReynolds Dissent McKenna LawsApplied UnitedStatesCode 28 1331 , UnitedStatesCode 28 1338 American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. , 241 U.S. 257 1916 ref citation , was an early United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction . Facts & Procedural History Plaintiff American Well Works Co. manufactured, sold, and held the patent to a particular type of pump, which was known to be the best on the market. The plaintiff sued defendant Layne & Bowler Co. on the grounds that defendant had maliciously libel ed and slander ed plaintiff s title to the pump by stating that the pump, and certain of its component parts, were Patent infringement infringements upon defendant s pump. Layne & Bowler had also filed lawsuit s against others who used plaintiff s pump, and were threatening to sue all who used it. American Well Works filed suit in the Arkansas state court, claiming actual damages of 50,000 as well as punitive damages . Layne & Bowler removal jurisdiction removed the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern ... with the well pleaded complaint rule set forth in Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley ... American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company note citation ussc 241 257 Full text opinion ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. ArgueDate January 9 ArgueYear 1995 DecideDate March 28 DecideYear 1995 FullName Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. USVol 514 USPage 159 Citation 115 S. Ct. 1300 131 L. Ed. 2d 248 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2408 63 U.S.L.W. 4227 34 U.S.P.Q.2D BNA 1161 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2249 95 Daily Journal DAR 3867 8 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 653 Prior C.D. Cal. found for plaintiff, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21172 judgment set aside by the Ninth Circuit, 13 F.3d 1297 1994 , reversed Subsequent Holding Under the Lanham Act, a color can be registered as a trademark. Individual colors, however, cannot be deemed inherently distinctive, so the registrant must demonstrate that the color has acquired secondary meaning in consumers minds as indicating the source of the registrant s goods. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Breyer JoinMajority unanimous LawsApplied Lanham Act Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. , Case citation 514 U.S. 159 1995 ref citation was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a color could meet the legal requirements for trademark registration under the Lanham Act , provided that it has acquired secondary meaning in the market. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff Qualitex Co. had used a green Gold color gold color for the pads which it sold to dry cleaning firms to use in their dry cleaning presses. Defendant Jacobson Products Co. was a rival of Qualitex. In 1989, Jacobson began selling their own pads to dry cleaners which were a similar color to those of Qualitex. In response, Qualitex filed a lawsuit against Jacobson in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for unfair competition . In 1991, Qualitex registered the green gold color of its pads with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark, and subsequently added a trademark infringement count to its lawsuit. The District Court found for Qualitex, but the United States Court of Appeals ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
