Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 9721 - 9740
of 13,223
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2011, 9:16 am
Stat. 39-15-103(a)(i)(A) sales tax is imposed on the sales price of every retail sale of tangible personal property within the state. [read post]
3 May 2011, 1:41 am
It's All There in Black and White: The illustration at the outset of this post of course depicts the characters from the classic Spy v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 3:44 pm
The plaintiffs, a group of union-sponsored health benefit plans, brought a class action in state court alleging various generic drug pricing claims against the defendants, who represent leading retail pharmacy chains. [read post]
2 May 2011, 1:23 pm
In New Mexico State Investment Council v. [read post]
1 May 2011, 10:34 am
”Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog calls the 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 8:25 am
In FCC v. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 5:00 am
In Bennett v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 10:54 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 7:43 am
Katz, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles 6 $257,679,500 Consumer Protection State of Louisiana v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:38 am
John Fund v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 7:42 pm
Same goes for prices. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 1:54 pm
W & J Harlan Farms, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 5:22 am
I wanted a flavorful pizza with quality ingredients at a good price. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 3:57 pm
The recently decided case of Barry v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 12:05 pm
Everyone has and continues to wait with concern the Court's decision in Dukes v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 11:46 am
” Laster v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 10:10 am
For instance, in United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 9:36 am
Well, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 9:03 am
Supreme Court’s January 2007 decision in Medimmune, Inc. v. [read post]