Search for: "Sellers v. State" Results 821 - 840 of 3,693
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2016, 2:51 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  The erroneous decision that prevents states from importing thiopental from willing sellers overseas could be abrogated by statute or taken up to the U.S. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 9:13 pm by Florian Mueller
Alsup of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a third case management order in the remand proceedings of the Oracle v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 4:31 am by Amy Howe
At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen previews Direct Marketing Association v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 4:35 am by Edith Roberts
Sellers, which asks when a federal court in a habeas case should “look through” a summary state-court ruling to review the last reasoned state-court decision. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In other transaction, in which Respondent was one of the three sellers and also represented the purchaser, the Appellate Division noted that he had received his initial investment plus a profit. [read post]
17 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In other transaction, in which Respondent was one of the three sellers and also represented the purchaser, the Appellate Division noted that he had received his initial investment plus a profit. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 7:03 am by First Mondays
We also fill you in on the court’s slightly-less-exciting opinions in United States v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 10:20 am by Eric Goldman
Stated differently, each settlement reaches farther than a cure based on rewording a label or an ad—effectively eliminating an entire channel of competitive advertising at the key moment when the consumer is considering a purchase. [read post]
30 Oct 2024, 1:39 pm by Mavrick Law Firm
Maybe the buyer or seller wants to back out or a party does not comply with its contractual obligations. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 6:44 am
In United States v. 4.85 Acres of Land, No. 07-35310 (Sep. 29, 2008), the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court should not have refused to admit evidence of sales at properties nearby the property taken, even though the sales occurred after the taking. [read post]