Search for: "Philadelphia v. Price"
Results 121 - 140
of 331
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
, Esq. and Jordan Fox of the Philadelphia office of Cozen & O'Connor entitled "Encouraging Attorney Civility During Depositions: The Enduring Impact of Hall v. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
, Esq. and Jordan Fox of the Philadelphia office of Cozen & O'Connor entitled "Encouraging Attorney Civility During Depositions: The Enduring Impact of Hall v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), Aetna, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
And then in 2003 in Lawrence v. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 3:06 am
As it put it: In light of the [plaintiff's] model's inability to bridge the differences between supra-competitive prices in general and supra-competitive prices attributable to the deterrence of overbuilding, Rule 23(b)(3) cannot authorize treating subscribers within the Philadelphia cluster as members of a single class. [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
In the 1974 case of Eisen v. [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 6:17 am
About Comcast, Think Progress wrote: The Comcast v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 8:25 pm
Following on the heels of Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 1:26 pm
In Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 12:16 pm
Last week, in Comcast Corp. et. al. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2013, 9:47 am
The dissent found it sufficient that respondents’ model demonstrated Comcast’s conduct resulted in higher prices in the Philadelphia DNA, rather than focusing on precisely how Comcast achieved this outcome. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 2:50 pm
Supreme Court, a majority of the Court extended the Wal-Mart v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 9:12 am
Because the model cannot bridge the differences between supra-competitive prices in general and supracompetitive prices attributable to overbuilder deterrence, Rule 23(b)(3) cannot authorize treating subscribers in the Philadelphia cluster as members of a single class. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 3:05 am
Behrend in a nutshell: The plaintiffs filed a class action accusing Comcast of monopolizing the market for cable services in Philadelphia, driving up prices. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 1:51 pm
Comcast v. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 12:56 pm
Comcast is an antitrust case in which the plaintiffs allege that Comcast, by acquiring competitors in the greater Philadelphia area, improperly enabled itself to charge higher prices. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 10:31 am
” Behrend v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 am
, Taxes and Priorities, R.I.P., BRT, A Tax Agency Rises from the Dead, and Tax Law as Subterfuge: Best Use Valuation v. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 9:03 pm
Arguing in McBurney v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 5:01 am
Now the price must be paid. [read post]
