Example: bachelor of science
CORPORATIONS OUTLINE I. EXAM CHECKLIST / BIG PICTURE …
H. Piercing the Corporate Veil I. Balance Sheets and Real Economic Value VII. PROTECTIONS FOR SHAREHOLDERS - 19 A. Shareholders enforcing their legal rights B. Shareholder Voting C. Information Rights D. Proxies and Proxy Solicitations E. Judicial Protection of the Vote from Manipulation F. Insiders Dealing in the Company’s Shares VIII.
Tags:
Information
Domain:
Source:
Link to this page:
Documents from same domain
Criminal Trademark Enforcement and the Problem …
www.law.nyu.eduCriminal Trademark Enforcement and the Problem of ... 2 See Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C ... case law that had expanded trademark law to …
NYU School of Law Outline: Criminal Procedure, Erin Murphy
www.law.nyu.edu{ The Court, however, says that the legislature should have used more than simply \shall" if it was suggesting a mandate. { Spouses tend to recant, there are limited police resources, and manda-
Hitler’s American Model The United States and the Making ...
www.law.nyu.edunewsletter of the Hitler Youth, described him as a “revolutionary” who might fail only because he lacked “a disciplined Party army like our Führer.”18 Meanwhile Roosevelt, for his part, though he was certainly troubled by the persecution of the German Jews and had harsh words for
Damages for Breach of Contract - NYU School of Law
www.law.nyu.edu2 I. Damages for Breach of Contract Three ―Damage Interests‖ •Expectation [Benefit of the Bargain]: Put promisee in position he would have been in had the contract been performed: •Measure: Wealth of promisee if promise had been performed – Actual Wealth
Damages for Breach of Contract - NYU School of Law
www.law.nyu.eduC. Implied Warranties 50 D. Express Warranties 51 XI. Writings as Evidence 52 A. Parol Evidence Rule 52 B. Statute of Frauds 55 XII. Constructive Terms: Material Breach 56 XIII. Mistake 57 A. Mutual Mistake 57 B. Unilateral Mistake 61 XIV.
Constitutional Law Spring 2013
www.law.nyu.eduCraig v. Boren (1976) (p. 1214) Sex Discrimination West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish(1937) (p. 511) Substantive Due Process United States v. Virginia (The VMI Case) (1996) (p. 1229) Sex Discrimination United States v. Carolene Products (1938) (p. 513) Substantive Due Process
Consideration - Home | NYU School of Law
www.law.nyu.eduWebb v. McGowan (S. Ct. AL, 1935): Working for D in a factory, P lept over a banister to divert a 75 pound package that was speeding toward D on the floor below. D promised to pay P. Consideration. 3. Harrington v. Taylor (S. t. N, 1945): P prevented Ds wife from murdering him by sticking her hand in front of a swinging ax. No consideration.
SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION - NYU School of Law
www.law.nyu.eduHowever, if interpretation of federal law is required to resolve the case, does not necessarily confer federal question jurisdiction. Gunn, 313. • Legal malpractice case requiring interpretation of patent law in case-within-case analysis. • Outcome of case has zero effect on patent law, and therefore no federal interest, no federal
Current Directions in Psychological Jury Decision Making ...
www.law.nyu.edujury performance in light of what psychology can offer. Assessing Jury Decisions The greatest difficulty in assessing jury decisions—from either a psychological or a legal perspective—is the impossibility, in most cases, of knowing whether the jury reached the ‘‘right’’ verdict. Occasionally, subsequent evidence comes to light
Civil Procedure Outline - New York University
www.law.nyu.edube regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. 1938: great procedural revolution (case XXX). The federal court applies their notion of the common law and their rules of procedure. Federal courts shall resolve the case in the way their think the highest court of the
Related documents
LIFTING, PIERCING AND SIDESTEPPING THE CORPORATE VEIL
www.guildhallchambers.co.ukcorporate veil truly existed, he summarised the position of the law at paragraph 27 as follows: “In my view, the principle that the court may be justified in piercing the corporate veil if a company's separate legal personality is being abused for the purpose of some relevant wrongdoing is well established in the authorities.
Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Negligent ...
www.gtlaw.comId. (allowing fraud claim to proceed where attorney stated there was no way to pierce the corporate veil, thereby implying that no facts existed to support veil piercing). § 1.6 DIRECT CONTACT NOT REQUIRED-) of) • • • • Valspar. § 1.12 NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION) of.