Search for: "Application of Greyhound Lines, Inc" Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Nov 2019, 9:36 pm by Florian Mueller
Greyhound Corp., [...] (9th Cir. 1977), this Court upheld a judgment holding that Greyhound violated Section 2 by refusing to interchange bus traffic with a competing bus line after voluntarily committing to do so in order to secure antitrust approval from the Interstate Commerce Commission for proposed acquisitions. [...[; see also, e.g., Biovail Corp. [read post]
30 Dec 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 318 EDA 2017 (Pa. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 2:35 pm by Law Lady
FLORES, Appellee. 3rd District.Insurance -- Windstorm -- Authority of agent to bind insurer -- Where insurance application clearly provided, on page two, actual notice of limitations on insurance agent's authority to bind the insurer; applicant did not receive page two of application, but a printed line directly above the signature line on page one of application stated, “I further understand and agree to the terms as set forth on page 2”;… [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 11:10 am by Sheppard Mullin
At the other end of the spectrum is Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 5:00 am
A corporation is domiciled only in the state where it is incorporated (Sease v Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New York, 306 NY 284 [1954]). [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:59 am by Susan Brenner
Hummingbird Speedway, Inc.,2010 WL 4403285 (Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court 2010), and Romano v. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 11:55 pm by admin
Greyhound Lines, Inc., 105 Nev. 756, 783 P.2d 437 (1989) (Affirming joint and several liability for negligence-free passengers protecting the rights of innocent victims of accidents); Rockwell v. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 11:55 pm by admin
Greyhound Lines, Inc., 105 Nev. 756, 783 P.2d 437 (1989) (Affirming joint and several liability for negligence-free passengers protecting the rights of innocent victims of accidents); Rockwell v. [read post]