Search for: "Direct Sales Co. v. United States" Results 241 - 260 of 1,024
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2009, 5:00 am
After rejecting Pirate's contention that the "actual malice" standard from New York Times Co. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 6:35 am by MBettman
At issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court of Ohio should update and clarify its attorney fee jurisprudence by adopting the United States Supreme Court’s guidance in  Perdue v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 8:12 am
We insure against risk of direct physical loss to property described in Coverages A and B. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 10:00 am by Michelle Ghetti
This would be devastating to gun-related commerce throughout the United States. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 11:02 am by Scott R. Anderson, Molly E. Reynolds
To ensure that it qualifies, it specifically directs President Trump “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen, except [where] engaged in operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces,” within 30 days. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 6:43 am by Schachtman
Various companies — Caterpillar, Inc., Aurora Pump Co., Innophos, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., United States Steel Corp., F.H. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:30 am by Jani
In the United States the protection of three-dimensional marks falls under trade dress (defined in 15 USC 1127), and is more mailable than legislation applying purely to registered trademarks. [read post]
27 Jul 2013, 3:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded after rejecting both of the District Court's grounds. [read post]
21 May 2018, 2:46 am by Scott Bomboy
But it does suggest that state schemes actively regulating marijuana (like CA & CO) are safe from a preemption challenge. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 2:11 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice Wiretap Applications Did Not Need to Allege Probable Cause That Controlled Substance Was in Khat Leaves United States v. [read post]