Search for: "Price v. United Parcel Service, Inc."
Results 21 - 34
of 34
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2013, 9:01 am
United Parcel Service 12-1226Issue: Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 6:01 pm
United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.) ____________________ “Price fixing is a type of theft from customers. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
” Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered.2 To put it bluntly: society benefits when creators get paid. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 8:08 am
In the 1932 Supreme Court case Fox Film Corp. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 4:13 pm
MILLENNIUM SETTLEMENTS, INC. and CAMBRIDGE GALAHER SETTLEMENTS AND INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a foreign f [read post]
11 May 2011, 3:37 pm
On a petition for review, review was denied in Price v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:43 am
., Petitioners, v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm
But we guess it bears repeating.The Supreme Court held in Day & Zimmerman, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
April 27, 2010) A class of purchasers of parcel tanker transportation services sought arbitration in their antitrust suit against a shipper for price fixing. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am
Click Here United Parcel Service to Pay $53,931 Civil Penalty to Settle Alleged Violations of Waste Regulations at Lenexa, Kan. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 12:37 pm
This article will provide an overview of the statutory framework of Section 363(f) and analysis of an opinion issued by the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") for the Ninth Circuit in the case entitled Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 11:08 am
(collectively "Stolt-Nielsen") are engaged in a "global conspiracy to restrain competition in the world market for parcel tanker shipping services in violation of federal antitrust laws. [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 10:56 am
Schooner Harbor Ventures v. [read post]
