Search for: "State v. Mart" Results 1301 - 1320 of 1,845
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2012, 6:31 am by Conor McEvily
Andrew Longstreth of Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune) writes that last Term’s Wal-Mart v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 12:49 pm by WIMS
Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 8:26 am by John Lewis
  The class certification issues involved provide the Court an opportunity to build on its landmark decisions, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 8:53 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233, 240 [1984]; Matter of Adirondack Council, Inc. v Adirondack Park Agency, 92 AD3d 188, 191 [2012]; Matter of Wal-Mart Stores v Campbell, 238 AD2d 831, 832-833 [1997]). [read post]
26 Oct 2013, 8:08 am
Over the last several years I have been considering the issue of corruption generally, --Soft Extra Territorialism and American Anti-Corruption Campaigns, Sept. 12, 2006; --Soft Extra Territorialism and Anti-Corruption Campaigns: On the Perverse Folly of Corrupt States, Sept. 15, 2006);--Rockwell International v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 2:08 pm by Tejinder Singh
On Tuesday, October 15, the Justices will hear argument in Heimeshoff v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 10:00 am
Gray goods, or parallel imports of genuine goods, refer to a fact pattern in which someone other that the designated exclusive United States importer buys genuine trademarked goods outside the United States and imports them for sale into the United States in competition with the exclusive United States importer.[4] While the terms, "gray goods" and "parallel imports," are often used interchangeably, opponents of parallel imports… [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 12:36 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 30 S.W.3d 455, 463 (Tex. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 9:50 am by Michael W. Huseman
K-Mart, 311 Ill.App.3d 573, 723 N.E.2d 1192, 1996 (1st Dist., 2000).Fast forward to the Fourth District case of Burns v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm by Bexis
We disagree.In Hoffman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit applied Pennsylvania law and concluded that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the manufacturer failed to adequately test its drug to discover potentially harmful side-effects. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 8:21 am by WSLL
Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. [read post]