Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 921 - 940
of 11,948
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2013, 8:10 am
The Justices certainly did not speak with one voice when they heard arguments Wednesday in Mississippi v. [read post]
30 May 2013, 2:02 pm
AU Optronics Corp., Docket No. 12-1036, a price-fixing case between the State of Mississippi and a number of electronics companies. [read post]
30 May 2013, 2:02 pm
AU Optronics Corp., Docket No. 12-1036, a price-fixing case between the State of Mississippi and a number of electronics companies. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 2:20 pm
Murray proceeded to sue Reorg, (Murray Energy Corporation v. [read post]
5 Jul 2024, 12:42 pm
Kahn v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 10:12 am
State v. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 8:25 am
US v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 11:58 am
The best answer, then, would be for the Supreme Court to revisit its conclusion in the 1992 case Quill Corporation v North Dakota, which required a physical presence in order for states to mandate collection of their sales taxes by companies that make sales to their residents. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 3:03 am
Bank, N.A. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 11:13 am
The potential pitfalls of a failure to separately state Ohio sales tax is illustrated in a recent BTA decision, Equilon Enterprises LLC v. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 3:21 am
They argued that these measures suppressed the supply of Canadian cars in the United States and led to increases in U.S. car prices. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 6:03 am
Before Ashcroft v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:52 pm
Irvine v. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 10:46 am
McDonough et al. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 6:03 am
Class representatives and their counsel in the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation have won another initial round in their suit alleging that Chinese vitamin C manufacturers conspired to fix prices and to limit the output of vitamin C exported to the United States. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 11:30 am
See Snyder v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 7:12 am
Last Thursday, however, the First Department reinstated one cause of action under General Business Law § 342-a, which allows for the recovery of civil penalties by the Attorney General (State of New York v Daicel Chem. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:00 pm
Judges Womack and Price dissented. [read post]
22 May 2016, 3:56 am
This isn’t a Butler v. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 4:59 pm
In its June 2014 decision in Halliburton Co. v. [read post]
