holding as a matter of federal preclusion law that officers and directors may be in privity with corporation if named in their corporate capacity
Summary of this case from Monagas v. De ArellanoNo. 94-2004.
October 2, 1995
C.A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 44 F. 3d 61.
holding as a matter of federal preclusion law that officers and directors may be in privity with corporation if named in their corporate capacity
Summary of this case from Monagas v. De Arellanoholding that Illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to Minnesota state court's dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on Minnesota's treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect
Summary of this case from Rowe v. Grapevine Corp.upholding copyright of privately prepared listing of automobile values that states required insurance companies to use
Summary of this case from Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Internupholding copyright of privately prepared listing of automobile values that states required insurance companies to use
Summary of this case from Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Congress Intern. Inc.affirming award of attorney fees to government under 42 U.S.C. § 9601 and § 9607(B) for work done by EPA legal staff and Department of Justice attorneys
Summary of this case from United States v. Dico, Inc.calling such an assertion "groundless"
Summary of this case from Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. CohenFull title:CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC. v. MACLEAN HUNTER MARKET REPORTS, INC
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 2, 1995
st provide specific objections to a request for attorney's fees or else be deemed to have waived such…
Wilson v. ByrdResolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Jones v.…