-
FERTILE GROUNDS So whether gardeners plan their gardens using Totally Tomatoes, rely on Roots and Rhizomes for their perennials or simply order from the flagship J. W. Jung Seed Co. catalog, they're all ordering from a company that was founded nearly 103 years ago hi a rural Wisconsin farmhouse by Zondag's grandfather, John W. "J.W." Jung. Jung's sons and a son-in-law, Tuenis "Tueny" Zondag formally joined the business - and many other family members helped out - and die company began to diversify, creating the affiliated Seed Service in 1952 to serve area farmers who purchased large quantities of seeds. Since dien, the retail arm of the business has grown to five locations in central and south central Wisconsin.
-
Oscar B. Goodman, Goodman, Stein, Chesnoff & Quintana, Las Vegas, Nev., for defendants-appellants Yong Woo Jung and Yee Soon Shin.
L.J. O'Neale, Asst...
-
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
IN RE EDWARD K. Y. JUNG and LOWELL L. WOOD, JR.
2010-1019
Appeal from the United States Patent...
-
... by the independent statistic institute, Jung & Jung GmbH (Planegg, Germany). The data were subm...
-
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
...
-
In the Matter of OTTO JUNG, OTTO JUNG, JR., & EDGAR J. JUNG, A PARTNERSHIP D/B/A JUNG SHOE MFG. COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKER...
-
James T. Stroud, Rezac, Stroud & Suhr, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Katherine V. Tooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent....
-
.... Taejin Jung . SUNY Oswego . Communication Studies Department ....
-
- Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,616, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6659, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,413 in Re Jong Gil Kim; Jung W. Kim, Debtors. Cho Hung Bank, a Korean Corporation, Appellee, v. Jong Gil Kim; Jung W. Kim, Aka Jung Wha Kim Aka Jung W. Cho Kim Dba Gill & Company, Appellants., 62 F.3d 1511 (9th Cir. 1995)
David Zweig, Los Angeles, CA, for appellants.
Henry Gweon, Law Offices of Jang W. Lee, Los Angeles, CA, for appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit B...
-
The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellant on her premises-liability claim. The trial court properly concluded there was no genuine issue that the condition of the entryway to the premises was open and obvious. The attendant circumstances exception does not apply. Building code and administrative regulations did not apply to create the negligence per se exception to the open and obvious defense. Judgment affirmed.