Search for: "Clayton v. State" Results 701 - 720 of 1,034
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2018, 9:56 am by John Elwood
Clayton County, Georgia, 17-1618, and Altitude Express, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 10:00 pm
Clayton Brokerage Co., 737 P.2d 1106, 1111 (Colo. 1987); Luckie v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
The Stanley Works (Docket Report) District Court C D California: Failure to allege lack of substantial noninfringing use sinks contributory infringement claim: Clayton v. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 5:50 am by Justin S. Daniel
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in Franciscan Alliance v. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 7:46 pm by Guest Author
*This is the fourth post in a symposium on William Novak’s New Democracy: The Creation of the Modern American State. [read post]
20 Jan 2020, 6:23 am by Brett Holubeck
Minimum Wage Increases Will Occur in a Number of States and Ballot Initiatives Will Be Undertaken to Get Them on the Ballot in Additional States Florida is one state that will have a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. [read post]
10 Dec 2024, 9:05 pm by Zoe Verni
Recent Sixth Circuit oral arguments in Tennessee v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm by Christa Culver
Saudi Arabian Oil Co.Docket: 10-1393Issue(s): (1) Whether the political question doctrine deprives the federal courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate a Sherman Act and Clayton Act damage case against both private and state-owned businesses operating in the United States; and (2) whether the act of state doctrine bars antitrust claims against defendants whose conduct was commercial, and where it came to fruition and had its effect in the United States.Certiorari… [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
In 1977, in GTE Sylvania, the Courtheld that vertical customer and territorial restraints should be judged under the rule of reason.[17] In 1979, in BMI, it held that a blanket license issued by a clearinghouse of copyright owners that set a uniform price and prevented individual negotiation with licensees was a necessary precondition for the product and was thus subject to the rule of reason.[18] In 1984, in Jefferson Parish, the Court rejected automatic application of the per se rule to tying.[19]… [read post]