Search for: "DOES 1-116" Results 801 - 820 of 1,189
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Sep 2021, 6:53 am by Cinthia Macie
 The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.[1] Epic’s principal theory was that Apple was the monopolist in each of two “aftermarkets” consisting of: (1) the distribution of iOS apps; and (2) payment processing for in-app purchases in iOS apps.[2]  Such antitrust claims, which assert a manufacturer’s monopoly over aftermarket services provided for… [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 1:36 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Clients should provide my office with the following 1. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 6:59 am by Michael Froomkin
Streetscape costs us 116 parking spaces; then 260 more will be lost while garage #1 gets rebuilt. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:15 am by Peter Mahler
App. 2014], and CCD, L.C. v Millsap, 116 P.3d 373 [Utah 2005], as cases in which the courts upheld orders of dissociation. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 12:18 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act [ICCTA] (49 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 10:26 am by Hadley Baker, Mikhaila Fogel
This list does include the president’s written responses to Mueller’s questions, which are included in Appendix C of the report. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am by MBettman
Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St. 3d 468, 2007-Ohio-6948 (rejecting a one-subject rule challenge where the plaintiff did not challenge the entire bill.) [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 4:59 am by Andres
David Slater does have a case, but he may have to go to court to be able to enforce it (must fight urge to finish with cutesy reference to going bananas, or a similar ape-related play of words). [read post]
31 Aug 2013, 4:20 pm by Bill Marler
For example, according to the final FDA 483 report, the owner was cited for six inspection observations: 1. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 3:03 am by Asad Khan
In Macris, the Supreme Court will clarify the true meaning of the words “any of the reasons contained in [a notice] relates to a matter which identifies a person” in s 393(1) and (4) of the Financial Services Markets Act 2000 (FMSA). [read post]