Search for: "Sell v. Sell" Results 1601 - 1620 of 23,629
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Dec 2022, 6:52 pm by Kurt R. Karst
  FDA has in fact asserted this position in the past: CRL v. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 10:00 pm
Protano found the designer's conduct wrongful; holding that the state’s anti-discrimination prohibitions did not unreasonably infringe upon the business-owner's religious freedom, nor was the refusal to sell the jumpsuit protected by the First Amendment.In a written decision, the judge recommended that the designer be compelled to pay Tiffany and Angel $5,000 for emotional distress, together with $20,000 in civil fines and penalties.Chalk that up as another win for the… [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 11:18 am by Florian Mueller
Google argues that the class action lawyers went too far, and on that basis has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district court's decision to certify a consumer class:Ninth Circuit appeal no. 22-80140; Mary Carr, et al v. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 8:20 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
These included a requirement to advertise their intention to sell the land and to consider any objections. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 7:46 am by CMS
” This is Lord Briggs introduction to his judgment in Guest v Guest and this also summarises the facts at issue. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 4:23 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Under this principle, in Cole v Macklowe (99 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2012]), the Court reversed a decision holding that a partner was automatically “divested” of his partnership interest by not exercising a buy-sell provision in the partnership agreement upon termination of employment, holding that Cole’s “failure to sell his interest did not divest him” automatically of the interest. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
As I said above, Bruen may well be the most anti-originalist opinion in history.The abortion decision, Dobbs v. [read post]
11 Dec 2022, 10:00 pm
# # #SOURCEBaron et al. v. iFIT Health and Fitness Inc. [read post]
11 Dec 2022, 9:56 am by Nedim Malovic
(the applicant) sought to invalidate the intervener’s EUTM, pursuant to Articles 60(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 (EUTMR) based on its earlier EUTM “SHOPIFY” covering goods and services in Classes 9 (computer software for e-commerce, electronic publications for e-commerce), 35 (provision of websites and mobile platforms featuring information in the fields of shopping, retailing, electronic commerce, and order fulfilment), 36 (providing electronic processing of credit… [read post]