Search for: "People v. Market" Results 621 - 640 of 9,137
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2012, 10:41 am
Normally, in our free-market (or heavily regulated free-market) economy, we think that the value of a thing is set by what people are willing to pay for it. [read post]
18 Jun 2023, 9:30 pm by ernst
Williams at the expense of Walker-Thomas (Part IV and V). [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 3:48 pm
Essex Trading Standards v Wallati Singh [2009] EWHC 520 (Admin) is a Divisional Court (England and Wales) decision from 3 March which the IPKat nearly missed completely. [read post]
12 Jan 2008, 11:53 am
But I do love to write and to get people laughing. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 1:46 am
The morning the ECJ delivered its judgment in L'Oreal v Bellure, on whether 'knock off' imitation perfumes which clearly weren't the trade marked goods, but were marketed in a way that 'winked at' L'Oreal's famous perfume brands, infringed L'Oreal's trade marks and were protected as permissible comparative advertising.Is harm needed for unfair advantage? [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 4:40 am by Old Fox
The Pink Pagoda is proprietary to the Bethune Institute of Canada and China, and was developed by people in the fields of intelligence and communications. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 12:49 pm by WIMS
If no such solution is found, California residents and people worldwide will suffer great harm. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 10:38 am by Ilya Somin
In the notorious condemnation project upheld by the Supreme Court in the famous case Kelo v. [read post]
By: Sofia Ellington On January 18th, 2024, The Washington Supreme Court came to the University of Washington School of Law to hear oral arguments in the case of Greenberg, et al. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 5:10 pm by David E. Bernstein
This may not be an original thought, but I had an epiphany last year while teaching Prigg v. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 2:13 pm by admin
Guest post by Andrei Mincov (Mincov Law Corporation) And so, round one of Apple v. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 9:47 am
That is, Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas will certainly vote to uphold a law passed by the Republican Party, claiming to be the "people of Indiana," that has the almost certain consequences of helping suppress the likely Democratic vote. [read post]