Search for: "Price v Price"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 18,272
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2015, 6:39 am
” The Tucker Act deprived the court of jurisdiction over unilateral and implied-in-fact contract claims seeking to hold the government liable for its regulatory and sovereign acts related to securities markets (Grady v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
Supreme Court held in 1975 that lawyers’ minimum fee schedules violated the antitrust laws (Goldfarb v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 11:17 am
” Towers Watson & Co. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 10:24 am
Wedi Corp. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 9:00 am
The Virginia Supreme Court (see Schuiling v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 9:22 am
EEOC v. [read post]
14 May 2025, 2:47 pm
., LLC v. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 11:55 am
Vault Cargo Management, LLC v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 10:00 am
That was precisely the outcome that the Supreme Court reached in its Henry v. [read post]
12 Aug 2017, 4:38 pm
Since the missing information kept the IRS from being able to evaluate its reported contribution without an audit, the Tax Court determined that substantial compliance could not be used to save the taxpayer from having its deduction disallowed.RERI HOLDINGS I, LLC, JEFF BLAU, TAX MATTERS PARTNER, v. [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 3:18 pm
Tamara Sepper – Executive Producer; Adam Waller – Senior Editorial Producer; Matthew Billy – Audio Producer; Jake Kaplan – Editorial ProducerREFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS: Subscribe to Now & Then, hosted by historians Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman: Apple Podcasts, SpotifyNow & Then, “Entangling Alliances,” 6/1/21NY Penal Law §460.20 - Enterprise corruptionEric Swalwell v. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 7:08 am
" Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al v. [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 9:24 am
Lipton and Sabastian V. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 8:46 pm
Distributor Not Barred from Assigning Antitrust Claims under No-Assignment Provision In Walgreen Co v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 12:00 pm
Here is the abstract: In 1945, the Supreme Court blessed a lesser known type of agency deference in Bowles v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 5:50 pm
The floating NAV is intended to address the heightened incentive for shareholders that have to redeem shares in times of high volatility and to improve the transparency of money market fund risks through more visible valuation and pricing methods. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 1:19 pm
Goldstein In Pizza Inn, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2013, 6:06 am
In Osram Sylvania Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
Supreme Court held in 1975 that lawyers’ minimum fee schedules violated the antitrust laws (Goldfarb v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 4:53 pm
Thus, for 20 years the company can charge “name brand” prices for the medication it has developed and generate profits that are commensurate with all of that investment, rather than merely with the cost of manufacture and distribution. [read post]
