Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 4:08-cv-01138 (N.D. Cal.), was a lawsuit filed on February 26, 2008, in a United States district court.The suit, based on the common law theory of nuisance, claims monetary damages from the energy industry for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska by flooding caused by climate change.
One example can be a customer suing a company to repeal an action deemed an infringement on the rights of the customer as a citizen and thus a subject to federal or state law. The largest direct-action lawsuit in history ($333 million) was the subject matter of the motion picture Erin Brockovich .
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 569 U.S. 1017 (2013).: Holding; Judgment AFFIRMED. Static Control's alleged injuries—lost sales and damage to its business reputation—fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and Static Control sufficiently alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark's ...
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the due process clause usually limits punitive damage awards to less than ten times the size of the compensatory damages awarded and that punitive damage awards of four times the compensatory damage award is "close to the line of constitutional impropriety".
Donoghue v. Stevenson: A formative House of Lords case. Caparo v. Dickman: 3 Tests for duty of care is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant; and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty. House of Lords case.
Apr. 9—SANTA FE — Two companies involved in the construction of the Buckman Direct Diversion Water Treatment Project will pay $36 million as part of a settlement agreement with the Buckman ...
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."
The case was cited in another copyright dispute from the same time, with Sega v. Accolade (1992) further establishing that reverse engineering is fair use. The case has also been cited for establishing the rights of users to modify copyrighted works for their own use, but the holding was distinguished by courts in Micro Star v.