Search for: "Sales v. State"
Results 1861 - 1880
of 19,296
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2015, 9:26 am
Specifically, the Pinti court stated that the case would apply to foreclosure sales of properties subject to mortgages containing similar provisions, for which the notice of default is sent after the date of the Pinti opinion. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 9:24 pm
The sale of articles in the United States under a United States patent cannot be controlled by foreign laws. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 12:18 am
Not for Publication United States District Court, S.D. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 5:25 am
This is Congress' response to United States v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 6:41 am
United States, holding that the federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners’ post-petition farm sale is not incurred by the estate under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, a case dealing with the impact of copyright’s first sale doctrine — 17 USC § 109(a) — on the Copyright Act’s importation prohibition — 17 USC § 602(a)(1). [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am
On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v John Wiley & Sons, a case dealing with the impact of copyright’s first sale doctrine — 17 USC § 109(a) — on the Copyright Act’s importation prohibition — 17 USC § 602(a)(1). [read post]
Supreme Court, by a 4-4 vote, Affirms the Ninth Circuit’s Restrictive Reading of First Sale Doctrine
15 Dec 2010, 2:56 pm
In Costco Wholesale Corp. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2020, 2:33 pm
See Dacres v. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Griswold v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 5:30 am
Passarella v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 9:07 pm
” Martinelli v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 12:21 pm
People v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 8:59 am
[Cite to Ohio State v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 11:10 am
Similarly, the fact that some investors may have liquidated covered securities in their retirement accounts to fund their Stanford investments was not determinative, because these sales were not a necessary part of the fraud.Roland v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 6:19 am
State v. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 6:51 am
Potts v. [read post]
29 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
In Valdez v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am
Washington State Department of Licensing v. [read post]
