Search for: "Sellers v. State"
Results 1061 - 1080
of 3,710
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jan 2015, 7:55 am
In McKinnis v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 10:47 am
North Dakota. (4) States that voluntarily and adequately simplify their tax systems should be authorized to correct the present inequities in taxation through requiring sellers to collect taxes on sales of goods or services delivered in-state, without regard to the location of the seller. (5) The States have experience, expertise, and a vital interest in the collection of sales and use taxes, and thus should take the lead in developing and implementing… [read post]
1 Oct 2024, 2:26 am
Because the test is objective, the seller’s subjective intent or state of mind is irrelevant. [read post]
22 May 2009, 4:10 am
The parties should also consider the guidance given by Arden LJ in Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment [2007] EWCA Civ 620 at [80]. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 4:40 pm
Impression Products v. [read post]
6 Mar 2018, 5:04 am
The case against Dick's Sporting Goods -- which raises the claim discussed here last week -- is Watson v. [read post]
1 Apr 2023, 2:01 pm
" The Court of International Trade is dealing with a claimed allowance in BRAL Corporation v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 9:39 am
The federal district court for the southern district of New York today allowed federal prosecutors to amend their forfeiture complaint in the case of United States of America v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 6:27 am
Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 12:03 pm
This is a major ruling validating the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising, which occurs when an advertiser purchases and displays ads triggered in response to third-party trademarks. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 3:08 pm
Cole v. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 1:03 pm
From the State of South Dakota (home to the Badlands, Custer State Park and - of course - Wall Drug) comes a family dispute in the business of selling farm implement equipment. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 10:55 am
State v. [read post]
12 May 2022, 6:45 am
v=0MDBIGACxig&t=60s. [read post]
9 Apr 2025, 7:05 pm
PLCAA does allow an action in which [1] a manufacturer or seller "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and [2] the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 2:26 am
USA: Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 10:26 am
Gulf States Reorganization Group v. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 5:43 am
LG Electronics, Inc., and Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 5:43 pm
PATEL, Appellant, v. [read post]
