Search for: "SEARS v. UNITED STATES" Results 141 - 160 of 248
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Oct 2012, 12:24 pm by Glenn
Even if they are correct, the parties pressing for government antitrust action against Google cannot claim the courts have ever recognized the concept of natural monopoly as a surrogate for the United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:01 am by Broc Romanek
Judge Easterbrook then goes on to offer some interesting perspectives about the current state of Section 8 enforcement: Actually, the chance of a suit by the United States or the FTC is not even 1%. [read post]
31 May 2012, 5:16 am by Doug Cornelius
The Delaware court sets the standard of review using the the four-factor formula set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Reves v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 10:25 am by Benjamin Wittes
,”—and calling for “destruction of the United States,” and “the destruction of the Jewish people. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 9:06 pm by Lyle Denniston
  But the Court returned to a strict interpretation of the ban in 1962, in the case of Enochs v. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 6:01 am by Frank Pasquale
” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 9:04 pm by Frank Pasquale
” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 11:18 am by david
United States (No. 11-182), the state’s appeal of an  April 2011 opinion by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked implementation of several key provisions in the law popularly known at “S.B. 1070. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 8:09 am by Lyle Denniston
In urging Supreme Court review, the state’s petition (Arizona v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 3:59 am by Mark Zamora
(“”Sears”) (collectively “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (styled Steve Chambers, Lynn Van Der Veer, David Brown, Bach-Tuyet Brown, Kevin O’Donnell, Joseph Cicchelli, Kurt Himler, Susan Milicia, Gary LeBlanc and James Cashman v. [read post]