Search results
Mar 3, 1995 · Lemon's father, Michael J. Nasser, Sr., in his capacity as administrator of Lemon's estate (the plaintiff), brought the present action seeking damages for Lemon's death against three defendants, namely, Dr. Parker and the two corporations that operated the hospital, the Hospital Corporation of America and Virginia Psychiatric Company, Inc.
Mar 23, 2012 · Parker v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. case brief Parker v. 20th Century Fox Film Corp. ; (Sup. Ct. of CA, 1970); CB 40; Notes 6 Facts : Fox hired P, Shirley MacLaine, to act in “Bloomer Girl,” a musical to be filmed in CA.
adr voice actor (uncredited) Edmund Shaw ... set production assistant: dailies (uncredited) Sam Sparks ... title designer: main and end titles (uncredited) Rob Townsend ... stand-in/double (uncredited) Dominique Tucker ... payroll administrator: Cast & Crew Entertainment Services (uncredited) David Voice ...
The earliest California case which the majority cite is de la Falaise v. Gaumont-British Picture Corp., supra, 39 Cal.App.2d at p. 469. de la Falaise states "The `other employment' which the discharged employee is bound to seek is employment of a character substantially similar to that of which he has been deprived; he need not enter upon ...
The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed. Diamond (defendant), the Commissioner of Patents, petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. Diamond argued that, by enacting the Plant Variety Patent Act, Congress implicitly understood that living things were not within the scope of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Mar 31, 2017 · Hamer v. Sidway. March 31, 2017 by: Content Team. Following is the case brief for Hamer v. Sidway, New York Court of Appeals, (1891) Case summary for Hamer v. Sidway: Uncle and Nephew entered into a contract in which uncle promised nephew $5,000 if nephew promised to refrain from drinking, smoking and gambling until he reached the age of 21.
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court found that the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress’ power to seize private property with just compensation to any specific purpose. The Court concluded that the power to determine what values to consider in seizing property for public welfare is Congress’ alone.
