Search for: "Price v Price"
Results 1541 - 1560
of 18,245
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 May 2008, 11:38 am
North Texas Specialty Physicians v. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 8:42 am
Leegin Creative Leather v. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 7:38 pm
Interesting art-related decision [$] out of the Eastern District of New York recently (Sands v. [read post]
17 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
Practitioners should take note of the September 5, 2024 opinion in Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 6:34 am
In a standard formulation, it calls on directors to establish “to the court’s satisfaction that the transaction was the product of both fair dealing and fair price” (Cinerama, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2024, 6:30 am
Practitioners should take note of the September 5, 2024 opinion in Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 8:15 am
The Northern District of Illinois approved the $28.5 million final settlement of the action styled US ex rel. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 10:00 am
Inc. of consumer fraud (Danika Gisvold v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 10:00 am
Inc. of consumer fraud (Danika Gisvold v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 2:28 pm
Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Roughly 15 years ago, in Wilder v. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 9:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 3:21 am
The specifics of the antitrust evidence aside, it is now clear, at least in the federal courts, that plaintiffs no longer credibly can cite Eisen v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 6:14 am
Both parties and the court agreed that California Retail Liquor Dealers Assoc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:58 am
Case: Frame v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 11:06 pm
As is well known, the House of Lords in Stack v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 7:13 am
Miles Medical Co. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 11:17 pm
They have some thoughts on Jones v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 4:12 am
Konsumentombudsmannen v Ving Sverige AB (Case C-122/10); [2011] WLR (D) 181 “A commercial communication constituted an ‘invitation to purchase’ within the meaning of article 2(i) of Parliament and Council Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, as soon as the information on the product and its price were sufficient for the consumer to be able to make a transactional decision. [read post]
20 Apr 2019, 7:53 am
” The Supreme Court also clarified its holdings in DFC Global Corporation v. [read post]
