Search for: "Price v. U. S.*" Results 81 - 100 of 118
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2019, 7:52 am by Joel R. Brandes
 Family Court Act § 412(2)(d) was amended to read as follows:  (d) "income cap" shall mean up to and including one hundred  eighty-four  thousand  dollars  of  the  payor's  annual  income; provided, however, beginning March  first,  two thousand twenty and every two years thereafter, the income cap amount shall increase by the sum of the average annual percentage changes  in  the  consumer … [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 12:06 am
              Currently, California Dental Association v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm by Mahmoud Khatib
”[44] If a letter of intent falls within the first or second category, courts generally do not consider it binding; but if it falls in the third or fourth category, courts generally consider it a binding contract.[45] For example, in Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. [read post]
  Outside of this directive, the agencies generally have taken the view that prior enforcement of the antitrust laws was too lax and that the narrow focus on more traditional antitrust harms (such as higher prices, reduced output, or lower quality) has been too narrow. [read post]