Search for: "Cash v. Cash"
Results 7101 - 7120
of 8,416
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Dreiling v. America Online: Ninth Circuit Rejects an Attempt to Expand Liability Under Section 16(b)
17 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
In Dreiling v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 4:11 am
Schachter v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 3:49 am
State v. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 1:04 am
Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Lodestar Anstalt [2009] FCA 1228 Lid dip POF [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 8:11 pm
Schachter v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 12:31 pm
By Mike Dorf In my latest FindLaw column, I examine a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Doe #1 v. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 2:00 am
McDaniel in McDaniel v. 162 Columbia Heights Housing Corp. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 2:20 pm
Amirsaleh v. [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 7:51 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 3:12 pm
But, in 2006, Justice Breyer wrote, in a dissent in Allen v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 11:07 am
The refund policy must state state whether or not it is the retailer's policy to give refunds and, if so, under what conditions, including but not limited to whether a refund will be given, including (i) on merchandise which had been advertised as "sale" merchandise or marked "as is;"(ii) on merchandise for which no proof of purchase exists; (iii) at any time or not beyond a point in time specified; (iv) in cash, or as credit or store credit only; or (v)… [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 8:50 am
First National Bank of Odessa v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 12:46 pm
On January 19, 1979, MITE Corporation filed a Schedule 14D-1 with the SEC, indicating its intent to make a $28 per share cash tender offer for Chicago Rivet & Machine Company. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 2:39 am
 People stopped carrying large sums of cash years ago, and that goes for pizza delivery guys. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 9:25 am
Clients, like law firms, are not cash cows. [read post]
7 Nov 2009, 5:20 pm
Eight plaintiffs raise the issue of supposed improper seizure or asset forfeiture in James Morrow et. al. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 5:52 pm
” (Burchard v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 1:14 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 1:00 pm
When re-reading Thorner v Major (links to our post) and Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe (again, links to our post) for that purpose, a rather important side-issue emerges about whether proprietary estoppel can be used to “get around” section 2, LP(MP)A 1989. [read post]
