Search for: "Sales v. United States"
Results 521 - 540
of 8,897
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2010, 8:15 am
The United States Supreme Court just heard arguments on the question of whether California's law banning the sale of excessively violent video games is constitutional. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 9:21 am
’s sales of product components shipped outside the United States. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 4:30 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 10:24 am
By 2008, e-commerce sales alone totaled $3.16 trillion per year in the United States. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:30 am
" IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION; THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: Humana v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 8:38 am
The United States District Court of Nebraska entered a consent order on March 3, 2010 in United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 1:28 pm
Background In the midst of the economic downturn, the purchaser did not complete on a pre-sale purchase of a $5,000,000 unit at the Residences, Fairmont Pacific Rim. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 1:28 pm
Background In the midst of the economic downturn, the purchaser did not complete on a pre-sale purchase of a $5,000,000 unit at the Residences, Fairmont Pacific Rim. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 1:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 1:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 10:31 am
Whether an item is genuine or not isn’t obvious to Net32: “although Net32 may have had contemporaneous knowledge that some of the Dentsply products sold by its vendors are different from the Dentsply products authorized for sale in the United States, Net32 did not have contemporaneous knowledge of which differences in certain products, if any, are material. [read post]
13 Jan 2018, 10:31 am
Whether an item is genuine or not isn’t obvious to Net32: “although Net32 may have had contemporaneous knowledge that some of the Dentsply products sold by its vendors are different from the Dentsply products authorized for sale in the United States, Net32 did not have contemporaneous knowledge of which differences in certain products, if any, are material. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 11:37 am
The Ninth Circuit had held that § 109(a) (First Sale Doctrine) does not apply to items manufactured outside of the United States. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 7:36 am
Case date: 06 April 2022 Case number: No. 21-35561 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
31 May 2017, 11:58 am
In Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 6:01 pm
In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2020, 7:12 am
April, 2018: A customer dispute states “Client upset over the performance of Gemini Fund V $50,000 investment. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 11:21 pm
(Ibid., citing United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:02 am
Sykes in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and assigned case number 17-2252. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 12:32 pm
People v. [read post]
