Search for: "Sellers v. State" Results 2861 - 2880 of 3,989
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2011, 9:34 am by David Bernstein
They typically supported state action in all of its vilest forms, including Jim Crow laws and anti-immigrant laws.Thanks to George Will, the book is out of stock at Amazon and BN.com. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:30 am by George Mundstock
 Quill held that a state could require use tax collection only from a seller with a “physical presence” in the state. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 10:07 pm by Venkat
The re-seller should have some amount of leeway to use the trademark owner's mark in order to refer to the trademarked goods and in the re-seller's domain name, but the court's order doesn't cut the re-seller much slack. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:43 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
No matter how the technological landscape has changed, that ruling continues to mandate how states must treat out-of-state sellers. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 10:42 pm by Russell Jackson
  The elements of the "malfunction" exception to the ordinary burdens of proof in strict liability should be clearly stated and strictly construed by courts. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 5:00 pm by John Ahlers and Paige Spratt
The AGC, in urging support of the mutual waiver, argued that recovery of Contractors' pure delay damages has been rendered exceedingly difficult by many recent State and Federal Court decisions. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 10:48 am by Ann Carlson
Our report will form the basis of testimony Cutter and Horowitz will provide today at a hearing CARB will hold to consider its final scoping plan to implement AB 32 and at which it will consider a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) about the scoping plan (the EIR was prepared by CARB in response to the judge’s ruling in Association of Irritated Residents v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 5:47 pm
In such a case, the seller is offering to sell the invention once he has conceived of it. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 4:21 pm
  Does the candy bar seller really get to keep the millions he rips off from other people, and only have to refund the $20 to those few people who can afford to spend $300+ to file a $20 lawsuit? [read post]