Search for: "Worth v. Price*"
Results 661 - 680
of 2,446
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2018, 9:50 am
(McKenna, 104-105) (quoting Rolex Watch U.S.A. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 4:20 am
” [See Wallis v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
Schrand, 2018-Ohio-3787.Background of Mezher v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
Schrand, 2018-Ohio-3787.Background of Mezher v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 4:33 pm
John Reed Stark Most readers are undoubtedly familiar with the concept of “insider trading” – that is, the purchase or sale by company insiders of their personal holdings in company shares based on material non-public information. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
The Court also considered two German cases (Pioneer v Acer[2]and St Lawrence v Vodafone[3]), where the German courts had found that a global licence was FRAND. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 7:17 am
Corp. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 12:38 pm
In NFIB v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 11:00 pm
(Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 11:00 pm
(Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 9:44 am
The case, Namerow v. [read post]
15 Oct 2018, 7:05 am
Nieves v. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 10:17 am
On appeal, she argued that she hadn’t received the benefit of the bargain: she paid for a product that didn’t increase the risk of ovarian cancer but received one that did, which was worth less than what she paid. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 6:00 am
Whether or not it succeeds, it will be worth watching. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 10:48 am
RainSoft v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 9:58 am
The case was Molera v. [read post]
19 Sep 2018, 11:28 am
His basic claim is that the Supreme Court made a major change in merger law in the mid-1970s, and that courts now must apply “modern” antitrust.[26] Since no one now really doubts that the Supreme Court meant to make some sort of change in the decisions of the 1970s, it is worth pausing on whether they really support the claims that Judge Kavanaugh makes for them. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 6:17 am
v=tYrue4oXCbo Music Stuff R.I.P. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 4:21 pm
On procedural grounds, in accordance with the New York Convention, a court may refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitral award ex officio if it find out that doing otherwise would be contrary to the public policy of that country [article V(2)(b)]; by contract, an ICSID award can be annulled only due to a serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure [ICSID Convention, article 52(1)(d), Arbitration Rules 50(1)(c)(iii)]. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 8:06 am
But the risk is also substantial--for the price of such engagement may be a larger loss of autonomy and a subordination to its new benefactor. [read post]
