Search for: "Sales v. State"
Results 1461 - 1480
of 21,150
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2014, 8:42 am
In Esgar v. [read post]
11 Feb 2007, 4:30 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 10:40 am
In State v. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 8:18 am
State v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 10:43 am
The new license permits direct sales to New Jersey consumers, including internet sales. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
The State of New York Court of Appeals strictly limited “all persons-present” warrants in People v. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 10:32 am
Addressed in the context of a marihuana (marijuana) sale, In People v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:03 am
Quill Corporation v. [read post]
25 May 2017, 7:14 am
Wittman v. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 1:05 am
Lord Hughes states that the acid test should be whether the application is in substance (impermissibly) to vary or alter the final order or whether it is (permissibly) to support it by working out how it should be carried into effect [54]. [read post]
29 May 2017, 10:00 pm
” Today, In Impressions Products, Inc. v. [read post]
24 May 2011, 2:28 pm
In Stoloff v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:18 pm
Toyota evidently hoped that the district court would not notice the careful parsing of its language, and that the Tabaris (who are defending this case pro se) would not call it to the court’s attention.Toyota is playing the same game on appeal: It states that bifurcation was proper because '[t]here was no factual overlap between Toyota’s trademark claims and Fast Imports’ interference claims.' But Toyota is only telling half the story by talking about only half… [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 3:27 am
A second, July, contract was for the sale and purchase of 150,000 mt of sulphur at $895 per ton. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 7:42 am
Theatre District Realty Corp. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 3:22 am
The amended complaint stated that Ingrao sent the buyer's attorney a letter "purporting to terminate" the contract of sale and returning the deposit. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
In referring to the recent TCL v Ericsson decision from the Central District of California (see Kat post here), Judge Labson stated:"The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ argument that summary judgment on Count III of the FAC is warranted. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 5:15 pm
Sales Test Under Revenue & Taxation Code section 23101(b)(2), if a taxpayer has sales in California for the applicable tax year that exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 25% of the taxpayer’s total sales, the taxpayer is deemed to be “doing business” in California. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 7:08 am
It remanded back to the district court to consider the infringement claim under the proper standard (Underwood v. [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 11:39 am
In determining the commercial reasonableness of the sale, the Court referred to its prior decision in Walker v. [read post]
