Search for: "Pete v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 408
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2011, 7:30 am by Tomiko Brown-Nagin
The New Orleans school desegregation case, Bush v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 5:51 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  Adopt the rule endorsed by a plurality of the Supreme Court in Kuhlmann v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 8:56 pm
”Preemption of State LawThe FTC addresses preemption in Section 436.10(b), explaining:“The FTC does not intend to preempt the franchise practices laws of any state or local government, except to the extent of any inconsistency with part 436. [read post]
27 May 2010, 7:27 am
His challenge to the statistics the franchisor provided regarding ethnic franchisees did not establish a reasonable inference that its explanation—that he failed to submit a completed site submittal package—lacked credibility, the court held.The decision is Halloum v. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 1:20 pm
The AP's Pete Yost reports here on the Court's decision in MedImmune v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 11:25 am
“Community of Interest” Made Distribution Arrangement a Wisconsin “Dealership”This posting was written by Pete Reap, Editor of CCH Business Franchise Guide.Evidence supported a determination by a Wisconsin state court jury that there was a “community of interest” under the meaning of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL) between a spa manufacturer and a dealer, a Wisconsin appellate court has ruled. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 2:25 pm
$12 Million Punitive Damage Award to Hotel Franchisee UpheldThis posting was written by Pete Reap, Editor of CCH Business Franchise Guide.There was no due process violation in an Arkansas state court jury’s award of $12 million in punitive damages to a hotel franchisee in its dispute with a franchisor, an Arkansas appellate court has determined. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:07 am
Because the franchisor had no duty to disclose the historical financial performance of the store, the franchisee’s common law fraudulent omission claim, as well as her IFDA and “little FTC Act” claims, failed.The decision in 7-Eleven, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:44 pm
It was the franchisee brother’s estate—not the franchisee brother—that refused to recognize the partnership and share the profits with the investor brother, the court observed.The decision in Marte v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 8:38 am
The rationale for extending the statute to situations such as this was to protect and enhance the commercial reputation of New York by regulating not only franchise offers directed at New York from other states, but also those originating in New York, from New York-based franchisors, in the court’s view.The July 7 opinion in A Love of Food I, LLC v. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 9:39 pm
Domino's relied on decisions from other states suggesting the language of the franchise agreement was dispositive on the issue of control. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 9:06 pm
The amendment demonstrated that the General Assembly knew how to protect a wholesaler’s right to the continued distribution of a brand, yet previously chose not to do so.The unpublished decision is Country Vintner v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 11:55 am by Kali Borkoski
This morning the Court issued its decision in the GPS tracking case United States v. [read post]