Search for: "State Bank v. United States" Results 6801 - 6820 of 7,413
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Dec 2008, 11:45 am
Tompkins‟ case comports with the United States and Florida Constitutions. [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 12:14 pm
: Peer International Corporation, Southern Music Publishing Co and Peermusic (UK) Ltd v Editoria Musical de Cuba (IP finance) Justice Kitchin upholds British Beer and Pub Association and British Hospitality Association appeal against decision of Copyright Tribunal on basis for calculation of fees which members have to pay for background music (IPKat) Contempt of court: the risks of false testimony in trade mark infringement proceedings: KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton (IPKat) (IPKat)… [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 6:15 pm
Bank Ltd. three Australian investors (“Plaintiffs”) sued National Australia Bank, and its wholly owned United States based subsidiary, HomeSide, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5. [read post]
22 Nov 2008, 3:48 pm
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950)1 Porter v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 3:48 pm
The issue before the court in Morrison v National Australia Bank was whether to excercise subject matter jurisdiction over the foreign claimants who bought their NAB shares on a foreign exchange. [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 6:30 pm
United States Dep't of Agriculture    Department of Agriculture 08a0397p.06 Davie v. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 6:46 pm
Hillary Clinton when she was running for president (Citizens United v. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 4:32 am
One such so-called maxim originated with Justice Stone's "Footnote Four" in the 1938 case of United States v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 7:00 am
Yet Europe and the United States are at loggerheads over how regulation fits in the Rethink. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 6:02 pm
National Australia Bank, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit limited the ability of U.S. courts to hear claims brought on behalf of non-U.S. investors who purchased shares of non-U.S. companies on non-U.S. exchanges. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 5:43 am
"[18] Significantly, anti-trust laws do not necessarily guarantee low prices, only the conditions that lead to them.[19]  This distinction is intentional; the United States Supreme Court has recognized that while it may set the circumstances for achieving a fair price, the workings of a liberal market are better able to determine the fair price itself.[20]  While anti-trust laws prohibit fixing maximum prices, the entire goal of the FPGPA is to accomplish… [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 2:09 pm
  During the next two weeks, I hope to explore some of these issues with you, many of which are implicated by the current economic crisis in the United States. [read post]
8 Nov 2008, 1:48 am
Sept. 30, 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the fraud-on-the-market doctrine established in Basic Inc. v. [read post]