Search for: "Sherman v. United States"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,055
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2007, 10:42 pm
United States, 193 U.S. 197, 364 (1904). [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 3:36 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 11:27 am
Burnette filed an antitrust class action complaint against numerous real estate brokerages in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 3:45 pm
MSRP policies are lawful under United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 3:36 pm
IntroductionOn June 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-1 decision that investment banks are immune from antitrust scrutiny in connection with syndication and marketing techniques employed in underwriting initial public offerings, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 10:46 am
Zeneca and ICI agreed to: (1) pay Barr $21 million; (2) pay Barr’s supplier $35.9 million; and (3) supply Barr with Zeneca-manufactured tamoxifen for resale in the United States at a high royalty rate. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:20 pm
IntroductionOn May 21, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant 7-2 decision tightening the requirements for pleading antitrust conspiracies under Sherman Act § 1, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 6:17 pm
California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 530-35 (1983). [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 3:09 am
Let me suggest, however, that the Department of Justice, and then the United States Supreme Court, explicitly refused to place the CRA into a genuinely transformative framework. [read post]
28 May 2007, 5:17 am
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. [read post]
25 May 2007, 8:57 am
Zeneca and ICI agreed to: (1) pay Barr $21 million; (2) pay Barr’s supplier $35.9 million; and (3) supply Barr with Zeneca-manufactured tamoxifen for resale in the United States at a high royalty rate. [read post]
24 May 2007, 12:35 am
Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U. [read post]
22 May 2007, 3:42 pm
Rettele; Mark Sherman has this article for the Associated Press. [read post]
22 May 2007, 1:00 am
In Bell Atlantic v. [read post]
22 May 2007, 1:00 am
In Bell Atlantic v. [read post]
21 May 2007, 9:29 am
The United States Supreme Court issued five opinions today. [read post]
7 May 2007, 8:49 am
And today the law has changed: A plaintiff can’t prove a violation of the Sherman Act simply by showing that a plaintiff has monopoly power; it has to prove anticompetitive conduct. [read post]
4 May 2007, 4:25 am
"[A]ll such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations of this chapter shall be by and in the name of the United States. [read post]
16 Apr 2007, 8:17 pm
See 316 U.S. at 252 ("[t]he price fixing features of appellees' licensing system, which are not within the protection of the patent law, violate the Sherman Act").United States v. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 8:07 am
United States, supra; Hoke v. [read post]
