Ads
related to: findlaw case law search enginecourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
checksecrets.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
FindLaw is a business of Internet Brands that provides online legal information in the form of state laws, case law and codes, legal blogs and articles, a lawyer directory, DIY legal services and products, and other legal resources. The company also provides online marketing services for law firms.
It was founded in 2003 by Tim Stanley, formerly of FindLaw, and is one of the largest online databases of legal cases. The company is headquartered in Mountain View, California. [1] The website offers free case law, codes, opinion summaries, and other basic legal texts, with paid services for its attorney directory and webhosting. [2] [3]
Full case name: Marybeth Armendariz et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., Defendant and Appellant. Citation(s) 24 Cal. 4th 83, 6 P.3d 669; 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 745: Holding; A contract must contain both a prodecural and substantiative element of unconscionability in order to be void.
The court noted that this case may be the first case within which an eBay seller sued a buyer for rescission of payment after the item had been picked up in the seller's state. The court applied the minimum contacts rule outlined by Int'l Shoe as well as the purposeful availment principle from Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , which aligns with ...
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 ...
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal court rules apply when an action is brought pursuant to a federal right and where the substance of a state's rules would necessarily have an adverse effect on the protection of an individual's rights under federal law.