Search for: "Direct Sales Co. v. United States"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,024
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 6:13 am
Co. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 6:47 am
Jirak v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:21 pm
” United Mine Workers v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 10:42 am
United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the valuation of rail corridors may become increasingly necessary. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 7:30 am
SEB S.A. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 2:37 am
For example, [see] Goulds’ Manufacturing Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
However, USPAP notes, “Use of direct excerpts from then-current appraisal reports prepared at the time of the retrospective effective date helps the appraiser and the reader understand market conditions as of the retrospective effective date. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:43 am
Co. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 3:00 am
Not surprisingly, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and plaintiffs’ bar have been pushing for an expansive reading of the law so that more such sales would be governed by American antitrust law. [read post]
17 May 2020, 2:35 pm
” QVD Food Co. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana, and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 12:10 pm
” Simply put, this means that no member of the United States government is above the rule of law. [read post]
2 Dec 2023, 7:25 pm
United States. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 11:05 am
Sparks & Co. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2017, 8:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
Bowman v Monsanto: the US Supreme Court rules on patent exhaustion and replication of patented seeds
14 May 2013, 2:09 pm
The Supreme Court noted that, under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, 'the initial authorised sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item' (Quanta Computer Inc. v LG Electronics Inc.): the rationale behind this rule is that, once a patentee has received his reward through the sale of the patented item, he has no further right to restrain the use or enjoyment of it (United States v Univis Lens Co.). [read post]
26 Jan 2021, 1:59 pm
United State comes full circle.] [read post]
16 May 2019, 12:15 pm
As an early defense in the case, Apple asserted that the consumer plaintiffs could not sue Apple because they supposedly were not “direct purchasers” from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 12:22 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice
Racketeering Charges for Off-Reservation Sale Of Cigarettes Lacking Tax Stamp Survive Dismissal
United States v. [read post]
