Comedy III Productions‚ Inc. v. Gary Saderup‚ Inc. Procedural History * Comedy III Productions brings right of publicity action against Saderup. * Trial court finds in favor of Plaintiff and Saderup violated the right of publicity statute‚ awarding damages of $75‚000. * California Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Courts decision. * Saderup appealed to the Supreme Court of California * Supreme Court of California affirms judgment in favor of Comedy III Issue Was the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Tort
Wong & Associates 1 Garelli Wong & Associates‚ Inc. v. William Nichols BUS 340 Ethical and Legal Issues in Business Wong & Associates 2 Garelli Wong & Associates‚ Inc. I. According to the court document of Garelli Wong & Associates‚ Inc‚ v. William M. Nichols Judge Charles P. Kocoras‚ of the United States District Court in N.D. Illinois’ Eastern Division‚ the court granted Nichols’ motion regarding the §1030 (a)(5) claim (Leagle. 2008). This ruling occurred due
Premium
Running Head: Apple Inc.: Business Analysis Part III Business analysis III: Apple Inc. Abstract In this paper I will be presenting some of the strategies and tactics adopted by Apple Inc‚ I will emphasize on the means it has been using to achieve its organizational objectives. I will also present a brief overview on different type of strategies using Porter ’s generics strategies. This will be a conclusion of Apple Inc. business analysis. Economic Trends
Premium Porter generic strategies
Production and Operations Management Group Assignment How the U.S. Lost Out in iPhone Work New York Times January 21‚ 2012 The subject of this work is evaluation of the article from the New York Times‚ dedicated to the peculiarities of the production processes of iProducts by Apple Inc. This article is a result of interviewing of dozens of people related to the company or experts sharing their personal view on the subject‚ including economists
Free Apple Inc. Steve Jobs App Store
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
Brief # 1-Circuit City Stores‚ Inc(Defendant) V. Mantor(Plantiff) Procedural History A year after Circuit City‚ Inc terminated Mantor’s employment he brought a civil action in state court alleging twelve causes of action. Circuit City petitioned the district court to compel arbirtration‚ and the distict court granted circuit citys motion to compel arbitration. Mantor appealed‚ argueing that the arbitration process was unforecable because it was unconsiable Issue Was the arbitration contract
Premium Contract Arbitration Civil procedure
Jerrica Langlais June 22‚ 2013 Human Resource Law Burlington Industries Inc v Ellerth Introduction In the last two years there has been 11‚364 sexual harassment claims filed according to the EEOC‚ it has been decreasing in the last 4 years but it was at a all time high in 1997. While working for Burlington Industries for 15 months‚ Kimberly B. Ellerth quit because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor Ted Slowik. Kimberly refused all of Slowik’s advances and did
Premium Employment Harassment Pleading
Monsters‚ Inc. is a 2001 American computer-animated comedy film directed by Pete Docter‚ produced by Pixar Animation Studios and released by Walt Disney Pictures. Co-directed by Lee Unkrich and David Silverman‚ the film centers around two monsters employed at the titular Monsters‚ Inc.: top scarer James P. "Sulley" Sullivan (John Goodman)‚ and his one-eyed assistant and best friend‚ Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal). Monsters‚ Inc. employees generate their city’s power by targeting and scaring children
Premium Pixar Monsters, Inc. Andrew Stanton
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
Wal-Mart‚ Inc v. Dukes Issues: Does the discretion exercised by Wal-Marts‚ local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violate title VII by discriminating against women? Should the case be classified as a class action suit? Rule: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination of employees on the basis of race‚ color‚ religion‚ sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or
Premium Employment Civil and political rights Gender