Search for: "Sell v. United States" Results 201 - 220 of 6,724
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2012, 8:45 am by Marvin Ammori
The Court--or rather the same five Justices appointed by Republicans who brought us Citizens United--held that Citizens United squarely forbids states from banning corporate spending on elections--whatever the facts in that state. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 10:54 pm
The State of Hawaii filed its merits brief in the "ceded lands" case, Hawaii v. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 8:35 am by The Docket Navigator
"Turning to undue prejudice, the Court finds [plaintiff's] complaints substantially mitigated by [defendant's] agreement to 'no longer make, use, offer to sell, sell, import or distribute any [of the allegedly infringing] products in the United States, until the earlier of: (a) the date on which the [Patent] Examiner issues a Right of Appeal Notice . . . [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 4:00 am by Alan Macek
Last month, the United States Supreme Court held in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
13 May 2013, 11:00 am by Todd Janzen
S. 617, 625, and confers on the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, “the right to use [or] sell” the thing as he sees fit, United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 4:15 am
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Defendant - and - United States Of America, Intervenor Defendants (Opinion, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 23-CV-1506) DOJ RELEASES St. [read post]
12 May 2016, 12:25 pm by The Federalist Society
Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai citizen who came to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics, asked friends and family in Thailand to buy the English-language versions of his textbooks in Thailand, where they were cheaper and mail them to him. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm by James J. Scherer
As KJK has previously covered, earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered a landmark ruling on the reach of the protections afforded by the Clean Water Act (CWA) in Sacket v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 3:00 am by Brad Walz
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that agreements among associate members to license their trademarks to one vendor may violate the Sherman Act. [read post]