Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 5181 - 5200
of 13,251
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2010, 7:55 am
State v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 4:15 am
Here is the qui tam complaint:CA v. [read post]
11 Sep 2010, 8:06 am
Vernor v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 7:34 pm
Mancia v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 9:36 am
” State v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
We, of course think that's wrong under Erie - where the default should be, if a form of liability hasn't been recognized by a state court, then it should be dismissed by a federal court applying that state's law in a diversity action.ConnecticutIn Gerrity v. [read post]
1 Jun 2018, 7:00 am
Christos V. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 1:53 pm
Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2016, 11:16 am
Last night, in a case that produced four opinions from the seven-member Court, a sharply divided Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Hooker v. [read post]
8 Jan 2009, 4:07 am
Id. at *9 n.11.Price inflation is not a viable theory of injury under RICO. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 9:38 am
(United States, et al., v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 11:13 am
If, as many signs indicated, the Court winds up splitting four to four in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 1:08 pm
The states must have flexibility in their rate-setting methodologies, but they are statutorily required—and should be judicially required—to pay a reasonable price for the services they buy. [read post]
26 Feb 2008, 9:41 am
" State of Indiana v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm
The Eleventh Circuit agreed in Sher v. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 11:54 pm
If this story is interesting or, perhaps, concerning to you, you should follow the case pending before the US Supreme Court entitled North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 6:22 am
The court further noted that Conference America did not have an obligation to clearly state the price for the service outside of the website. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 7:17 am
Corp. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 3:26 pm
After a long a tedious approval process, one state may permit the new advertising method/pricing structure only to have the state next door prohibit the same exact activity. [read post]
