Search for: "Price v. Commonwealth"
Results 1 - 20
of 271
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2012, 6:00 am
Township of Warminster, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Warminster Township improperly negotiated new pricing for an extension of a waste services contract. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 6:04 am
However, earlier this month, in Cagey v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:34 am
" Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 6:52 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
24 Jan 2016, 10:22 am
Zachary Price The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of Howarth v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 5:17 am
Commonwealth v. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 8:25 pm
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 3:31 am
Last year the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in Robinson Township v Commonwealth. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 11:14 pm
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 5:01 pm
In Greenstar Pittsburgh LLC v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 8:11 am
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 6:15 am
In Shaw v. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 12:06 pm
This week the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued another ruling in a Marcellus Shale related land case. [read post]
7 May 2020, 5:29 am
It is the PBS listing of the first generic that usually triggers a statutory reduction in the government subsidised price for prescription medicines so the Commonwealth’s claim hinged on this causative link. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 2:09 pm
The issuer of a builder's risk policy ("Commonwealth") was not required to indemnify contractors for deficiencies in the installation of a hardwood floor where the Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion in the policy applied.Ploutos Enterprises Ltd. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 2:36 am
A court ruling has revealed that the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. the Federal Government) is seeking to recover $60 million it considers has been ‘overpaid’ for the anti-clotting drug marketed by Sanofi (formerly Sanofi-Aventis) and Bristol-Meyers Squibb under the brand name PLAVIX: Commonwealth of Australia v Sanofi-Aventis [2015] FCA 384.Sanofi was the owner of Australian Patent No. 597784, which includes claims directed to the compound having the… [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 6:21 am
In the case of Bereznicki v. [read post]
21 Apr 2014, 6:13 am
In Shaw v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 6:41 am
Hudson’s decision in Commonwealth of Virginia v. [read post]
