News
[07/30]
Oil falls to near $78 as global stocks drop
[07/30]
Fortune Brands 2Q profit more than doubles
[07/30]
Renault returns to profit in first half
[07/30]
Oil falls below $78 as global stocks drop
[07/30]
House passes bill to boost commuter airline safety
More...
Articles
Why You Need to Write a Business Plan
You may be excited about a great idea you have to start a new business. Perhaps in your current job you have noticed a need for a service that your employer requires to be successful. Or perhaps you have invented a new product or design. Whether you realize it or not, you need to plan for your business before going forward. Your business's future success may depend on it.
More...
What entities can professionals use to start their businesses?
States restrict which business forms certain kinds of professionals may choose when they begin a business solely to provide their professional services. These laws most commonly apply to health care professionals, attorneys, engineers, veterinarians, psychologists and social workers. Although requirements vary from state to state, professionals generally may choose to be sole proprietors or to form a partnership, a professional limited liability partnership or a professional corporation. Professionals should consult their attorneys to determine what business forms are available to them in their state.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/28]
Bilski v. Kappos In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
[06/25]
Rathborne Land Co. v. Ascent Engy., Inc. In an action for breach of defendant's obligations to reasonably develop and explore a leased parcel of oil, gas, and mineral land, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's letter to defendant met the La. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 31:136 demand requirement; and 2) district court did not clearly err in concluding that plaintiff would have been able to lease the disputed acreage more than once if it had been able to seismically survey the parcel prior to 2006. However, the judgment is vacated in part where neither the district court nor plaintiff could show an adequate ground -- indeed, any relevant precedent -- for awarding consequential damages for lost leasing and seismic revenues on the entire parcel.
[06/25]
Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp. In an action for tortious interference with contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) under the court's highly deferential standard of review, there was no reversible error in the district court's decision to use the pattern jury instruction; 2) there was sufficient evidence of both malice and gross negligence to support an award of exemplary damages; and 3) there was ample evidence of causation to support the verdict.
[06/24]
DDJ Mgmt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C. In an action claiming that defendants presented plaintiffs with corporate financial statements that were false and misleading, the appellate division's modification of the trial court's order dismissing plaintiffs' fraud claim is reversed where: 1) when a plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to protect itself against deception, it should not be denied recovery merely because hindsight suggested that it might have been possible to detect the fraud when it occurred; and 2) plaintiffs in this action for fraud have alleged facts from which a jury could find that they were justified in relying on the representations defendants made to them.
[06/23]
Rectrix Aerodrome Ctrs., Inc. v. Barnstable Mun. Airport Comm'n In plaintiff's suit against an airport commission and individual defendants, claiming that it was prevented from competing with defendant in the sale of jet fuel, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's fraud claim fails as plaintiff was a commercial tenant of the airport and, given the self-service standards and lease terms, had no right and no reasonable expectation of being able to sell jet fuel at the airport; 2) the antitrust claim is barred by the state action doctrine given the Massachusetts statute; and 3) plaintiff's equal protection claim under section 1983 fails as no private entity at the airport has the privilege sought by plaintiff.
More...
|