Search for: "State v. Price"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 11,951
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2010, 1:01 pm
Because the defendant was a municipality and not a private actor, active state supervision of the regulatory scheme was not required, according to the court.The June 8 decision is Danner Construction Co. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 6:28 am
The caption of the case differs from the “State v. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 12:30 pm
Noto v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 10:55 am
Today, in Morris v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 9:57 am
The district court case is Motorola Mobility, LLC v. [read post]
24 Jan 2021, 10:47 pm
The appellate panel began by citing AMF, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 6:36 am
Miles Medical Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 2:29 am
Most states classify trade secrets and customer contacts as protectable interests, and Missouri is no exception.The recent Missouri appellate decision Brown v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 3:02 am
Farneth v. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 11:06 pm
See Valassis Communications, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 7:01 am
While not the case law everywhere, most U.S. courts will take the approached expressed by the landmark Louisiana decision in Standard Oil Co. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 12:13 am
It is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [read post]
25 Mar 2007, 8:02 am
Any implication that a provision in the Agreement that Weaver might receive 25% of the sale price of the company indicated an ownership interest was negated by the right of first refusal provision in the Agreement, which would require Weaver to pay the same price as a third-party bidder, indicating no such ownership interest.The judge concluded that, except for any compensation due to Weaver under the Agreement, for which calculation sufficient information has already been… [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:56 am
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 8:30 am
Limits on ability to audit or question the bills you receive are greatly curtailed, see State CA v Sutter Health & MultiPlan. 3. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 6:34 am
In Gonzalez v. [read post]
18 Mar 2022, 4:46 am
So says Pearl Resources Operating Co., LLC v. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 8:01 am
By resting its decision on Willingham’s mutable/immutable distinction, the panel revives—in fact, expands—a doctrine the Supreme Court invalidated more than twenty-five years ago in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 2:26 pm
Hayworth v. [read post]
22 Oct 2014, 7:39 am
” In its 1943 decision in Parker v. [read post]
