Case Analysis Of Yun Tung Chow Vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011) .

The Plaintiff is claiming $35 million from the State of NSW, which is purported to be vicariously liable for the Land and Environment Court and Pain J [1]. This claim includes nullifying Pain J’s judgment [14], and it is accompanied by Motions to uphold Lloyd J’s dismissal and refund the Plaintiff’s filing fees [2].

The main issue of this case is to determine if Tricontinental may recover from PwC for negligence. In order to show negligence there must be four requirements that the plaintiff must show. The four requirements are: the defendant owed a duty of care, defendant breached that duty, breach of duty to care caused the plaintiff’s injury, and fourth that damages resulted.

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

Parties are called as the plaintiff and defendant when it is the first hearing of a case. In this case it is not an original case but had been appealed. Hence the two parties would be appellant and respondents. In addition, during the appeal case, the party which against

Keegan, T. (2012). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng. New York Law School Law Review,

Ling Nan ZHENG, Ren Zhu Yang, Yun Zhen Huang, Wen Qin Lin, Sai Bing Wang, Ye Biao Yang, Cui Zhen Lin, Rong Yun Zheng, Hui Fang Lin, Xiu Ying Zheng, Jin Ping Lin, Hui Ming Dong, Yu Bing Luo, Sau Chi Kwok, Sai Xian Tang, Yi Zhen Lin, Rui Fang Zhang, Mei Juan Yu, Mei Ying Li, Qin Fang Qiu, Yi Mei Lin, Mei Zhu Dong, Fung Lam, Xiu Zhu Ye, Sing Kei Lam, and Xue Jin Lin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC., Albert Nigri, and Hagai Laniado, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Ngon Fong Yuen, 88 Fashion Inc., Top Five Sportswear, Inc., S.P.R. Sportswear, Inc. and 91 Fashion, Inc., Defendants, Lai Huen Yam, a/k/a Steven Yam, 998 Fashions, Inc. and 103 Fashion Inc.,

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

The court found that any person, regardless of prior conviction, interest or involvement, or relation to the defendant may be called by the government or the defendant

• Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd OR Taco Company of Aust Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd (“objective test”)

“Defendant”, “you”, and “your” refer to the party or parties to whom these Interrogatories are directed and all other persons acting on behalf of such party, including, but not limited to,

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)