Search for: "Sherman v. United States"
Results 501 - 520
of 1,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2014, 8:56 am
(collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 11:41 pm
In United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:45 am
They’re just not an antitrust violation in the United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 7:37 pm
Thus the court held that Sherman stated a non-categorical takings claim and remanded it to be heard on the merits in District Court. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 9:53 am
[Ed. note -- Sorry for the delay; Jon and I were both out late last week.]United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 4:37 pm
”) The government responded by filing another brief on behalf of “the United States” authorized by the Solicitor General. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 9:38 am
” United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:18 am
However, the decision applies only to a category of ostensibly public workers who aren’t “full-fledged” state employees, and to which the High Court’s 1977 holding in Abood v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 11:08 am
Twombly, and Ashcroft v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 6:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 4:11 am
., non-criminal) “reviewable matters” under the Act include abuse of dominance (or monopolization as it is referred to in the United States under the Sherman Act), civil misleading advertising, refusal to deal, price maintenance and certain types of “vertical” restraints by dominant firms (e.g., exclusive dealing and tied selling). [read post]
28 May 2014, 5:36 am
For the jury to have found Katakis guilty of obstruction of justice, it had to find that the government proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:[1] that defendant Katakis knowingly altered, destroyed, or concealed electronic records or documents; [2] that defendant Katakis acted with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence an investigation that he either knew of or contemplated; and [3] that the investigation was about a matter by or within the jurisdiction of the… [read post]
15 May 2014, 1:53 am
United States (221 U.S. 1) that the Standard Oil Company was in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 209). [read post]
8 May 2014, 12:54 pm
United States, 234 U.S. 600 (1914). [read post]
10 Apr 2014, 11:46 pm
Then, quoting Standard Oil v. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 11:25 pm
United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695 (1978). 4. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 12:51 pm
Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided largely in favour of Mr. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:32 am
(Though, in United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 6:45 am
United States” in the New Mexico Law Review. [read post]
