Search for: "Price v. United States"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 5,286
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2010, 6:00 am
Shareholders in the United States continue to have much weaker shareholder rights than shareholders in the UK and other English-speaking countries. [read post]
1 Feb 2008, 11:13 am
In United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:01 am
Indeed, Japan has a record of allowing approximately 14% of patents that are granted in the United States. [read post]
30 May 2017, 2:42 pm
United States, No. 16-1063C (2017) resolves–in favor of veteran-owned businesses–an important question that has been lingering since Kingdomware was decided nearly one year ago. [read post]
2 May 2009, 12:34 pm
The Supreme Court, see United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:00 pm
Citibank, N.A. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 6:13 pm
DVSS brought a motion in the district court to dismiss Bamberg's claims on the grounds that, because Bamberg did not obtain its products directly from J & J, it lacked standing to pursue antitrust claims based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 2:14 am
In Vernon v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 11:08 am
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. [read post]
6 May 2014, 5:11 am
California and United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 9:37 pm
If demand decreases, unit sales decrease, and if a retailer's unit sales decrease as a result of a price increase which does not affect per-unit profits (as would be the case when price increases are "passed on"), isn't the retailer damaged by a reduction in profits? [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 8:17 am
United States, 106 Fed. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 9:31 am
Thus, the Federal Circuit upheld Jazz Photo and reaffirmed that patent exhaustion doctrine is territorial, such that “United States patent rights are not exhausted by products of foreign provenance. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 9:23 pm
Lyman, 68 Haw. 55, 704 P.2d 888 (1985), indicated that it would not interpret the "public use" provisions of article I, section 20, of the Hawaii state constitution as broadly as the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the corresponding provisions of the fifth amendment. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:53 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:26 am
§ 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964; and (2) whether Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 7:20 pm
McNulty v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 1:17 pm
District Court for the District of Massachusetts 2013) (citing United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 11:48 pm
FTC More recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a case called North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
23 Jan 2021, 11:22 am
§ 41713(b)(1), a provision of the Airline Deregulation Act, preempted the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and money had and received causes of action because both were state law claims “related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier. [read post]
