|29 Result(s) Found
|Source: Combined Federal Cases
Search Terms: mars pre/1 (inc or incorporated)
|Compose a New Search
Schmitz v. M & M/Mars, No. 03-970., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 8, 2004, Decided
Lawrence v. Mars, Inc., 91-1931, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 5, 1992
Ex parte Collett, No. 206, Misc., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 7, 1949, Argued , May 31, 1949, Decided
OVERVIEW: Writs of mandamus and prohibition were properly denied; the Code of Judicial Procedure authorized a federal district court, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, to transfer a FELA action to any district where it might have been brought.
Mars, Inc. v. Bowles, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 20, 1943.
Davies Warehouse Co. v. Brown, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 16, 1943.
Ex parte Mars, Inc., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 25, 1943.
Edgar P. Lewis & Sons v. Mars, Inc., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 4, 1933.
Price v. Mars, Inc., No. 06-3712, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, August 15, 2007 * , Submitted* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)., August 21, 2007, Decided
OVERVIEW: Employee's claims brought under Title VII, ADA, and Illinois tort law, were properly dismissed because her federal claims were barred by fact that she did not file her administrative charge of discrimination within the 300-day limit applicable to workers in Illinois, and her state law claims were not filed within applicable statutes of limitations.
Harris v. United States, 20 06-5137 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, March 8, 2007, Decided
Voda v. Cordis Corp., 05-1238 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, February 1, 2007, Decided
OVERVIEW: Leave to amend a patent infringement complaint to allege infringement of foreign patents was an abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c), since considerations of treaty obligations concerning patents, and of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, indicated that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was not warranted.
Compose a New Search
Back to Top
Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available
jurisdictions and courts for
Select a case name link to read the full display of the case � absolutely FREE!
If you are not a registered lexisONE user, you will be asked to register. Registration is free.
Did you find the case that you're looking for with this free search?
Run this same search with results decided within the last five years at Lexis.com
Tell me more about lexis.com searches!