Search for: "State v. Sullivan" Results 1961 - 1980 of 2,731
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2010, 8:23 am
Moreover, the plaintiffs faced no significant threat of future antitrust harm in the absence of the injunction because, according to their experts, the market had become increasingly competitive and there is no longer any guarantee that the prices De Beers set would hold in the marketplace.The July 13, 2010, decision in Sullivan v. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 8:34 am by Paul Horwitz
 Of course, the starting point for many con law classes is Marbury v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 6:34 am by Antitrust Today
A day before Judge Brody’s ruling, the Third Circuit vacated a $295 million settlement in the De Beers case, Sullivan v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 7:22 am by Kent Scheidegger
Why do Congress and some state legislatures allow the same thing at the penalty phase? [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 9:50 am by Berin Szoka
Remember the infamous $2.86 million judgment awarded to woman who made the very stupid decision to put a copy of freshly brewed coffee between her legs in a car seat in the 1994 case of Liebeck v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am by INFORRM
She states that “Sullivan and its progeny have made it extremely difficult for anyone in the public eye to sue successfully in defamation” (Grant at [67]). [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 8:14 am by Marcia Oddi
State of Indiana, a 7-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Sullivan writes:Defendant Andre Peoples pled guilty in 2008... [read post]