Search for: "People v. Price" Results 1601 - 1620 of 4,339
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2019, 4:00 am by Jason Rantanen
  I’m not sure what the exact price is, but it’s likely be about $30 including shipping. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 4:12 pm by James Romoser
He represented plaintiffs in important lawsuits involving claims of racial or gender bias by employers, including Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 7:24 am by David Hart QC
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS Related posts: Enemy of the people – what price water information? [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 3:27 pm by Joe Mullin
PERA would throw out a landmark Supreme Court ruling called the Alice v. [read post]
4 Aug 2016, 1:49 pm by Sandy Levinson
 Even the Supreme Court prefers to treat Bush v. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 8:54 am by Florian Mueller
The U.S. district court will hold a trial in December, and the purpose of the injunction is to bar Huawei from leveraging two Chinese patent injunctions (granted by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court) before Judge Orrick has the chance to adjudicate a related claim.Like in the court below, Quinn Emanuel, as counsel for Samsung, is defending the Microsoft v. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 10:31 am by Michael Risch
Without this ability, either the price of such information products will be higher, or they may not be created at all.Many people disagree with me on the second point. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 10:31 pm by Ilya Somin
  I would add that many of the beneficiaries of new development are people who are priced out of a given area by restrictions on construction, but could potentially move there if developers are allowed to build new housing. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:51 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Authentic prices increased after initial drops. [read post]
9 Mar 2008, 9:59 am
Chan Ct, CA No. 3142)Some people may have been wondering if and how the Vice Chancellor distinguished the Portnoy ruling on delay with his earlier ruling in Mercier v. [read post]