Search for: "PRICE v STATE" Results 221 - 240 of 13,190
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2024, 7:24 am by Guest Author
” As stated by Justice Rehnquist in his concurring opinion in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 7:00 pm by Howard Gutman
On re-direct, Clayton stated that based on his examination of the Cadillac and his opinion as to the same, he would not recommend that a consumer pay full price for the vehicle or buy it at all. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
”[23] This violated Supreme Court precedent because “utilizing a back-end price drop as a proxy for [a] front end misrepresentation’s price impact works only if, at the front end, the misrepresentation is propping up the price. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 11:31 am by The White Law Group
  The firm improperly offered new bonds from its inventory to customers at higher prices than the initial offering prices negotiated with bond issuers. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 4:35 pm
It would be utterly self-funded too with the price horn commands within the existing markets, with many many thousands of dollars changing hand within this vile trade. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Again, sophisticated lenders would take the adopted rules into account when they priced their loans. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 1:00 pm by ernst
This book traces the development of the jurisdiction from the foundational decisions of Huckle v Money and Wilkes v Wood in England, to leading modern cases such as Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd in Australia, Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co in Canada, Couch v AG (No 2) in New Zealand, PH Hydraulics and Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd in Singapore and Mathias v Accor Economy Lodging, Inc and State Farm Mutual… [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am by Just Security
”  South Africa had argued that the imposition of such a requirement would follow the model the Court had used in the provisional measures phase of Ukraine v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 6:33 am by centerforartlaw
The criminal gang responsible for this theft sold the Buddha heads to a dealer from Chengdu at $1500, and they then sold them to a buyer from Southeast China for $18,500.[16] It often happens that the stolen work doubles or triples in price each time it is transferred to a new buyer. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 6:32 am by Daniel J. Gilman
The decision is, in many respects, grounded in established law, applying the Baker Hughes burden-shifting framework, and considering price effects (and consumer welfare); likelihood of entry; and, indeed, likely merger efficiencies. [read post]