Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 4501 - 4520
of 11,965
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2012, 7:32 pm
Richard v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 1:10 pm
A closer look at Hospira v Cubist and daptomycin micellesIPKat returns to the Hospira v Cubist case to look in more detail at the claim relating to purifying daptomycin by altering by PH.* My My Mylan: The Trademark Silver Lining for Mylan's EPIPENMylan has recently come under fire for raising the price of the EPIPEN. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 8:51 am
See Amgen v. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 10:21 am
Reference was made to various cases, including Morison v Moat (1861) 68 ER 492, where Turner VC held that “the Court fastens the obligation on the conscience of the party, and enforces it against him”, and Smith Kline & French Laboratories v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health (1990) 17 IPR 545, where Gummow J stated that “an obligation of conscience is to respect the confidence, not merely to refrain from causing detriment to the… [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 10:31 am
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 6:51 am
Payne v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 7:35 pm
Today’s opinion in Fifth Third Bancorp v. [read post]
1 Oct 2022, 11:17 pm
The inflexibility of Apple's approach is, by the way, another reason (besides the 30% cut) why NFT startups complain about the app tax.Apple's inflexibility also affects currency conversion (Apple recently announced massive price increases in the eurozone and several other countries, and many app makers might actually prefer to keep the old euro prices).When I last commented on the pending Pepper v. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 9:45 am
King v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 7:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993). [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 12:55 pm
Synergy Sport International, Ltd. v United States, 17 C.I.T. 18 (1993).Customs cites many difficulties with the application of the First Sale Rule as the reasons for the proposed change. [read post]
24 Apr 2025, 7:32 am
The state's brief is due in a month. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 12:44 pm
O’Connor v. [read post]
3 Aug 2021, 3:39 pm
The second case, NCAA v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 6:38 am
Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 6:54 am
Cain, Sabastian V. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 5:42 pm
Because it pre-empts all state or local regulation “relat[ing] to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier,” which the Concession Agreement would seem to implicate. [read post]
1 May 2021, 1:44 pm
The organization argues that the state law is preempted by a U.S. law which bars any state from the imposition of restrictions on the price, route or service of motor carriers, which are federally regulated. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 11:23 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 11:23 am
United States v. [read post]
