Search for: "T-UP v. Consumer Protection" Results 3681 - 3700 of 4,765
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2011, 6:05 am by admin
And when one homeowner doesn’t pay those fees, all the other homeowners have to pick up the cost. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 4:59 pm by David Kopel
Regarding conditional federal grants, in 1987 in South Dakota v. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 9:30 am by Rebecca Tushnet
By Rebecca Tushnet and Eric GoldmanTrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 6:03 am by Stephen Albainy-Jenei
  Unfortunately, they were on federal land and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn’t require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 2:12 pm
However, she suspects its either due to lack of IP understanding or due to money (NM doesn't have much). [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 3:52 pm
Dep’t of Parks & Recreation v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 6:35 am
He is not protected from debts that were previously discharged, which means the harassment by creditors can start up again (and likely already has). [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 5:23 am by Susan Brenner
The court then took up Kandutsch’s argument that the EMD reports were inadmissible hearsay. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 8:06 am by Max Kennerly
Haviland Hughes, the lead plaintiffs’ counsel, knows how to litigate cases against pharmaceutical companies; last year they cleaned up with similar unfair trade practices and consumer protection claims against a variety of drug companies arising from overcharging of state Medicaid / Medicare funds. [read post]