Search for: "Price v. State" Results 1341 - 1360 of 11,975
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2018, 11:55 am by Nassiri Law
That measure bars any state from passing a law that will hinder motor carrier’s services, routes and pricing. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 12:33 am
Earlier this month, the Bombay High Court issued its judgment in the case of Price Waterhouse & Co. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2024, 2:42 pm by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in November 2024 in Teva v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 11:47 am by Wally Zimolong
In fact, under the so called Spearin Doctrine, which gets its name from a 1918 Supreme Court decision United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 9:50 am by Eric Goldman
ICANN wants federal regulators to declare the pricing scheme illegal so that it can take action against the operator, but if it doesn’t get bailed out by these government enforcers, it won’t do anything. * The most significant keyword advertising loss in Europe, Interflora v Marks & Spencer, was overturned and ordered for a retrial. * Treemo, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 1:13 am
While price-fixing in Canada is not direct evidence of price-fixing in the United States, it certainly makes such a claim plausible, and, in my opinion, should be sufficient to allow the Chocolate cases to survive the motion to dismiss.We'll likely find out what the Court thinks in a few months, when it rules on the motions to dismiss. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 5:55 pm
Part of the ploy in getting these free agents is displaying the seeker team's brand new, or newly renovated, state of the art facility. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 5:00 pm
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Free Expression Docket: 09-166 (certified question, see Lyle's post here) Title: United States v. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 10:11 am by Nate Persily
Gore, really more relevant in addressing the million dollar question whether the Court has paid a price in public opinion for its decision? [read post]
  To show that the price fixing challenged by plaintiffs is actively supervised by the state, and therefore immune from the antitrust laws under the state action doctrine, defendants cited ordinances giving municipalities the authority to regulate fees. [read post]