Search for: "Department of Commerce v. New York" Results 621 - 640 of 753
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
And in amicus brief news, IJ is weighing in on the age-verification debate currently at the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 6:44 am by Colby Pastre
Six states—California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania—have claimed more than half the value of the deduction in the past, and in New York and California, it represents 9.1 and 7.9 percent of adjusted gross income respectively, compared to a median of 4.5 percent. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am by Ben
The change was sparked by a decision by a federal judge in New York who ruled that the key verse in the song was not protected under copyright for lack of originality. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
Irving Selecoff arrives in Liverpool, from New York, aboard the S.S. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 1:40 pm by Guest Author
As one volunteer wrote, the FTC’s rule on non-competes is “a big enough deal to make the front page of the New York Times;” hence the court will strike it down. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 9:22 am by Schachtman
  Selikoff arrived in New York, from Liverpool, London, on the S.S. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:18 am
Mergers and acquisitions are regulated under the Clayton Act, which states: "No person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or any other share capital... of the assets of one or more persons engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where... the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of suck stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or… [read post]
29 Dec 2019, 7:23 pm
The news adds to the growing list of human and religious rights violations being committed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 12:51 am
Weissman argued that for nearly a century, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers had misconstrued a 1909 Supreme Court decision, called New York Central and Hudson River Railroad v. [read post]