Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 581 - 600
of 13,162
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2009, 2:24 pm
Bennett Does a pair of plastic slip on shoes purchased for $29.99 bring to mind a luxury automobile priced at $51,000? [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 7:36 am
" It also states that "Lessors and Lessee agree that the holding in the case of Heritage Resources, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 6:04 am
Ctr. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 9:40 pm
In a recurring classic example, Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 5:37 am
A CRTC report suggests that prices and speeds in Canada compare well against other countries. [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 4:41 am
By all accounts, oral argument before the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. [read post]
10 Dec 2006, 8:39 am
Back in October, in the case of Jones v. [read post]
10 May 2013, 5:03 pm
See Morales v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 3:42 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 12:28 pm
(Owens v. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 7:56 am
Le v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 2:41 pm
See, e.g., Gunder’s Auto Center v. [read post]
Refusal to Sell Bulk-Size Packs, Without More, Is Not Price Discrimination – “Size is Not a Service”
26 Aug 2016, 8:52 am
Citing United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 9:00 am
See Op. and Order, McGlone v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 11:01 pm
The Classic Antitrust Case of Toys “R” Us v. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 11:01 pm
The Classic Antitrust Case of Toys “R” Us v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 10:08 am
The State charged Gonzales with two counts of aggravated sexual assault against his eight-year-old daughter. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 1:59 pm
State laws, Japan’s Company Act provides shareholders opposing the reorganization the right to request the company to purchase shares at a “fair price”, and if the negotiation cannot be concluded within a certain period of time, the opposing shareholders can request the court to determine the fair price. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 9:03 am
" Erie County v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 11:58 am
The 5-4 majority held that the district court and Ninth Circuit both erred in concluding that the price-squeezees stated a viable antitrust claim. [read post]
