Search for: "Price v. Price" Results 3161 - 3180 of 18,047
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2019, 7:35 am by John McFarland
In 2002 the Carters sold the land to Texas Outfitters, owned by Frank Fackovec, for $1 million, financing a part of the purchase price. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:37 pm by Meg Martin
Price, II, Judge.Representing Appellant Rice: Jeffrey A. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 1:21 pm by WIMS
The E15 waiver also will increase the demand for corn and thus increase corn prices for food producers. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 1:17 pm
  "The complaint asserts that the defendant-directors’ wrongful conduct inflated ARCP securities prices and resulted in the subsequent decline in value of those securities when the fraud was revealed. [read post]
24 May 2018, 3:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
(Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, 26 NY3d at 50; LaRusso v Katz, 30 AD3d 240, 243 [1st Dept 2006]; Brooks v Lewin, 21 AD3d 731, 734 [1st Dept 2005]; see Stackpole v Cohen, Ehrlich & Frankel, LLP, 82 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2011].) [read post]
The sharp decline in oil prices over the past year and a half has had a significant impact on operators and mineral lessees in Louisiana and in other oil-producing states. [read post]
The sharp decline in oil prices over the past year and a half has had a significant impact on operators and mineral lessees in Louisiana and in other oil-producing states. [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 1:00 am by CAFE
 Don’t miss the Insider bonus, where Preet and Shaw discuss the opinion in Moore v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 1:30 am by Neil Wilkof
A difference in pricing between 30% to 69% when comparing the Accused’s selling price for the Goods and Apple’s recommended retail price for the genuine goods was held as a significant disparity. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 5:13 am
The Claimant failed to act expeditiously in moving Perindopril into category M (i.e. the 'generic' price category) of the NHS Drug Tariff. [read post]
5 May 2011, 5:05 am by Chris Stott, Pannone LLP
The Crown argued that his “benefit” was the proportion that the dishonest loan represented as 60% of the original purchase price. [read post]