Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (officer’s knowledge of defendant’s prior
Xxxxxxxx v. Western Regional Health Corporation, et. al., previously filed on March 2, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and dismissed without prejudice by order of the court on April 24, 2014; and
Xxxxxxxx v. Germany (decision), 2010, no. 60705/08 Complaint about failure to provide translation of indictment (6 § 3 (a)). Court: With oral translation of arrest warrant and meetings with counsel together with an interpreter, a written translation of the indictment was unnecessary. Applicant had not explained how his defence rights had been affected by the lack of a translation. Inadmissible
Xxxxxxxx v. Xxx Xxxxxxxxx, et al. (“Xxxxxxxx II”) is a lawsuit filed on February 10, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants used their control over Parent and its corporate suffrage process in effectuating, directly participating in and/or aiding and abetting violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of the duty of candor. The claims arise out of the circumstances at Parent relating to its 2013 and 2014 proxy statements, the departure of Xx. Xxxx as Chairman of Parent’s board of directors and Parent’s Chief Executive Officer, alleged violations of the FCPA, and Parent’s acquisition of 3PAR Inc. and Autonomy Corporation plc (“Autonomy”). On February 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting Parent’s administrative motion to relate Xxxxxxxx II to Xxxxxxxx I. On April 8, 2014, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of Xxxxxxxx I by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. • Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund x. Xxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding Parent’s Standards of Business Conduct (“SBC”) that were false and misleading because Xx. Xxxx, who was serving as Parent’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with Parent. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United Sta...
Xxxxxxxx v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009). Xxxxxxxx v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx Co. Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992). Xxxxxx v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993). Xxxxxxx v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005). Meritor Savings Bank x. Xxxxxx, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Xxxxxx v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Xxxxxx v. Erie Foods International, Inc., 576 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2009).
Xxxxxxxx v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (2009). Xxxxxxxx v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx Co. Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992). Xxxxxx v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993). Xxxxxxx v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005). Meritor Savings Bank x. Xxxxxx, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
Xxxxxxxx v. Excela Health, 210 A.3d 967, 973 (Pa. 2019).
Xxxxxxxx v. Police Dep't, 241 X. Xxxx. 3d 433, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 13 Id. 14 Id. at 440. 15 Id. 16 See OIG-NYPD, An Investigation of NYPD’s Compliance with Rules Governing Investigations of Political Activity, at: xxxxx://xxx0.xxx.xxx/assets/oignypd/downloads/pdf/oig_intel_report_823_final_for_release.pdf). 17 Id. at 1. 18 Id. 19 The three types of investigations are: (1) Preliminary Inquiry, (2) Full Investigation, and (3) Terrorism Enterprise Investigations. Approval for Preliminary Investigations last for up to 180 days, and approval for Full and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations last for up to a year.
Xxxxxxxx v. Freshbev LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07119 (E.D.N.Y.), Xxxxxxxx v. Freshbev LLC, 322 F. Supp. 3d 330, 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Therefore, plaintiff has successfully pleaded his GBL §§ 349 and 350 claims with respect to the ‘unpasteurized’ label on the Cranberry juice.”). These cases attempted to apply the applicable law to the effects of novel technologies which were not considered at the time the FDA enacted regulations in this area.
Xxxxxxxx v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03279-CA-32), filed on January 31, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (ii) Stackewicz v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03106-CA-40), filed on January 28, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iii) Jiannaras v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-03471-CA-40), filed on February 2, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (iv) Xxxxx v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-cv-20369), filed on February 2, 2011 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division; and (v) Minneapolis Firefighters’ Relief Association v. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx, et al. (Case No. 6175-VCN), filed on February 7, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
