Search for: "Patman v. Patman"
Results 21 - 40
of 67
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2016, 2:15 am
In Matthew Enterprise, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 9:21 am
Cash & Henderson Drugs, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 1:55 pm
Co-authored by: Heather Bloink Dynamic pricing is the practice of offering different prices to consumers based on various factors designed to maximize sales and profits, which may include the retailer’s perception of the willingness of a particular consumer to pay at a given price point, often in connection with other factors such as a given point in time. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 10:17 am
Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 3:16 pm
Truett Payne Co., Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 9:45 am
Am., Inc. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 8:45 am
Am., Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 5:00 am
The decision is AFSCME District Council 37 Health & Security Fund v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 8:59 am
The Guides clarify the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 ("Act") which is intended to help small retailers compete against the larger chain stores by prohibiting anti-competitive price discrimination that could harm competition between the smaller and larger retailers. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 11:52 am
Although FTC v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:58 pm
(Photo credit: Wikipedia) In Williams v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 3:39 pm
The allegation that certain large consumers, by receiving a rebate, effectively paid a lower rate than the complaining customers did not transform the action into an attack on filed rates.The June 4 decision is Willams v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 3:47 pm
In Fresh N’ Pure Distributors, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 11:20 am
Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 1:01 pm
However, there was no indication of what that evidence was, or how it tied to the supplier’s actions.The August 4 decision in Dynegy Marketing and Trade v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 12:20 pm
Twombly (2007-1 Trade Cases ¶75,709) and Ashcroft v. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm
Finally, and most recently, Morrison has been applied to narrow the reach of the Robinson-Patman Act, which proscribes the payment of bribes and kickbacks. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 7:11 am
Supreme Court has declined to review Feesers, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 7:00 am
Probably the most famous case about this issue is Nebbia v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 4:09 pm
The food distributor asked the Supreme Court specifically whether, in order to establish competitive injury under the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff had to prove that the favored and disfavored purchasers bought discriminatorily priced products at the exact same moment at which they or their customers competed to resell those products.The petition is Feesers, Inc. v. [read post]
