Search for: "Sales, C. v. Sales, S." Results 1761 - 1780 of 6,065
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Nov 2019, 5:30 am by Alan Z. Rozenshtein
Rubenfeld relies mostly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Skinner v. [read post]
Samsung’s appeal from the High Court was intervened by the CJEU’s judgment in Louboutin v Amazon[2]. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
http://t.co/l2MXeuR5q1 -> Newbury v Sun Microsystems Ltd – when is a settlement offer binding? [read post]
14 Jul 2008, 11:30 am
In a posting last December I wrote about an important estate tax case, Jelke v Commissioner, in which a federal appeals court adopted a bright-line rule requiring 100% discount for built-in capital gains tax ("BIG") in the valuation of C corporation assets. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 5:57 am by Matthew C. Bouchard, Esq.
#480492765 / gettyimages.com In September 2013, I blogged about the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) in Christie v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 5:57 am by Matthew C. Bouchard, Esq.
Embed from Getty Images In September 2013, I blogged about the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (“COA”) in Christie v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:25 pm
•           In the ANCHOR trial, Vascepa® 4g/day significantly reduced TG, non-HDL-C, Apo B, VLDL-C, TC  and HDL-C levels from baseline relative to placebo in patients with high (≥ 200 mg/dL and < 500 mg/dL) triglyceride levels not controlled by diet and statin therapy. [read post]
Additionally, despite the fact that the safe harbor under Rule 506(b) does not allow the offer and sale of securities by any form of general solicitation, general solicitation is permitted under Regulation Crowdfunding and Rule 506(c) of Regulation D. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 1:38 pm by Jennifer E. Benda
  The Fifth Circuit’s held that the Tax Court’s reliance in Belk  v. [read post]
Red Bull’s marks and the disputed Big Horn signs are as follows: Red Bull’s marks and the disputed Big Horn signsRed Bull claimed infringement of their trade marks contrary to Article 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(c). [read post]