Search for: "STAND et al. v. STATE."
Results 741 - 760
of 2,195
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2008, 7:38 am
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from putting its new claims and continuation rules into effect (SmithKline Beecham Corporation et al. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 5:36 am
Marlette Funding, LLC et al. ( in which the court ruled several days after the OCC final regulation was issued–a fact of which the court was apparently unware–that a non-bank assignee of loans made by a state bank cannot charge the same interest rate that the state bank itself could charge under FDIA Section 27(a)), as well as the cases filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services… [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 12:00 am
Commentary Regarding the interpretation of the contract generally, the Court’s consideration of whether the terms incorporated by reference actually formed part of the agreement stands as an interesting 21st century twist on the so-called “battle of the forms”.[14]See Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd. v Ex-Cell-O Corp (England) Ltd. [1977] EWCA Civ 9. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Decided and Entered:June 6, 2024 CV-23-1696 [*1]In the Matter of Thomas Hart et al., Petitioners, v Town of Guilderland Industrial Development Agency et al., Respondents. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Decided and Entered:June 6, 2024 CV-23-1696 [*1]In the Matter of Thomas Hart et al., Petitioners, v Town of Guilderland Industrial Development Agency et al., Respondents. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 10:31 am
State Bd. of Education, et al. [read post]
5 May 2022, 10:38 am
Mendota heights Dental Center et al. [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 5:41 pm
Teleglobe USA, Inc. et. al. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 2:16 pm
Yet, on January 5, 2023, in a 3-2 decision in the case of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 1:20 pm
United States Bureau of Reclamation, et al. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 7:04 am
The anitrust case (Pacific Bell Telephone, et al., v. linkLine Communications, et al., 07-512) is a test of the theory that a “prize squeeze” violates the Sherman Act. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 9:04 am
Jackson wrote in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 1:40 pm
Eastern) in the case of Perry, et al., v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 12:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 7:35 am
In Chowdury v. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 10:33 am
U.S. and Texas v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 6:39 am
Opis Management Resources, LLC et al. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2015, 7:22 am
Schindler Corp., et al [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 9:22 am
Here’s where they stand after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling: mandatory editorial transparency requirements. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm
Kroeger, et al. [read post]
