Search for: "State v. Sales" Results 541 - 560 of 20,882
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2024, 9:45 am by Trent Dykes
In one case, the court ruled that a 30-month noncompete in a sale of a business agreement was unenforceable where the definition of “business” encompassed all of the purchaser’s business lines and geographic areas rather [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 12:36 pm by Eugene Volokh
Certain speakers ("firearm industry members") who want to promote the sale of firearms to minors, however, are silenced. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Deeming any business combination transaction involving a reporting shell company, including a SPAC, to be a sale of securities to the reporting shell company’s shareholders. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am by centerforartlaw
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 8:00 am by Kenan Farrell
On February 4, 2024, the Defendant filed two Motions to Dismiss, a jurisdictional challenge under 12(b)(1) and a failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6). [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 2:12 pm by centerforartlaw
Therefore, it expired on February 3, 2009, long before the plaintiffs brought the action in New York state court in December 2022. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am by Phil Dixon
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 12:34 pm by Covington & Burling LLP
”  A press release accompanying the bill’s introduction stated that Congressman Pallone introduced the bill “to protect consumers from the bombardment of dangerous and unwanted calls and texts that have been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am by Alessandro Cerri
 Further, the Court stated that it is an established principle of settled case-law that, as a general rule, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the relevant time limits, and the EUIPO is not prohibited from taking account of such facts and evidence (mobile.de v EUIPO, C‑418/16 P).In this case, it was accepted by both parties that Mr Noah had submitted the first evidence of use of the Mark within the time limit set by… [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 6:31 am by Linda Panszczyk
As for the injunction, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Rolex that the district court should have enjoined the sale of Rolex watches with non-genuine bezels, thus affirming, as modified, the district court’s injunction in part (Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 6:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Section l0(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. [read post]