Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 5381 - 5400
of 13,251
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2016, 2:31 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 8:15 am
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia were damaged by Stericycle’s alleged price-inflation. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 6:29 am
The court stated: “I do not, however, believe that the defendant’s conduct was harsh, vindictive, reprehensible or malicious so as to justify an additional award of punitive damages. [read post]
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
17 Feb 2016, 3:41 pm
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court decided several energy cases consolidated under the heading Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 12:24 pm
Talen Energy Marketing and CPV Maryland v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:12 am
SCOTUS on New Deal Price Controls here. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:00 am
State v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:00 am
State v. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:50 am
Hicks v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 1:45 pm
Solis which states that submission to OFCCP investigations “is the price of working as a federal contractor. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 12:08 pm
Bono v. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 10:00 pm
While the Supreme Court has not unequivocally pronounced software to be ineligible subject matter for patenting, its recent decision in Alice Corp. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 9:24 pm
The Federal Circuit released its en banc decision in Lexmark v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 1:45 pm
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 3:24 pm
Strong local, state, and federal lien laws embolden hospitals to drive a hard bargain. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 2:31 pm
Adams v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
RUEDA, Appellant V. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 6:10 am
The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part (Lott v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 7:20 am
The latter of these regulations were challenged, and considered by the Supreme Court in UARG v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
In finding that the mark consisted of the shape that gave the product substantial value, the CJEU stated that this concept was not limited to the shape of products having only artistic or ornamental value and that it also covered products with “essential functional characteristics”. [read post]
