Search for: "State v. Direct Sellers Association"
Results 321 - 340
of 385
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2010, 3:59 am
Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 8:28 am
SUPPLEMENTAL EARNINGS CLAIMS 18 V. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 4:44 am
Even under Wyeth v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 7:47 am
Heald, which held that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state retailers to directly ship wine to consumers or could prohibit it for both, but couldn’t ban direct shipment only for out-of-state sellers while allowing in for in-state sellers. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 6:17 am
The statute only states that a permit holder shall not “knowingly” sell beer or wine to an intoxicated person. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 4:00 am
Two years ago, in Littman v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 10:10 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:30 am
The Associated Press (via the Boston Globe) reports that a group of Chicago residents and a gun sellers group have already filed a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted Chicago gun control ordinance that prohibits handgun possession outside homes and bans gun shops in the city. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
The first-stated purpose underpinning the Bill is “to strike a fair balance between private reputation and public information”. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:11 am
Bilski et al. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 6:28 pm
The legal, business, and scientific communities eagerly await the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bilski v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am
COLA's auditor also stated that Miracle Star did not provide adequate records for the audit, which caused the auditor to be unable to determine if Miracle Star had provided all specific services stated in the contract. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:29 pm
However, the United States Supreme Court in Reves v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 4:30 am
See Mateer v. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 3:30 pm
" (Polymer Tech Corp v Mimran (1992)). [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 7:55 am
Without a showing of direct competition, the seller failed to state a claim for false advertising under the Lanham Act, according to the court.Even if a “sponsored link” might confuse a consumer, with several different sponsored links appearing on a page it was hardly likely that a consumer might believe each one was the true producer or origin of the Styrotrim product. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 2:47 pm
Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 1989) (following Associated General Contractors formulation); Commonwealth v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 8:45 am
Lawrence v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:23 pm
Who said they aren't slick down in the Lone Star State? [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 1:49 pm
(Think Bush v. [read post]
