Search for: "Sherman v. United States" Results 481 - 500 of 1,039
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Sep 2014, 11:22 pm by Jarod Bona
Independence Tube Corporation, for example, the United States Supreme Court held that the coordinated activities of a parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary are a single enterprise (incapable of conspiring) for purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 12:18 pm by Tyler Coppage
Major League Soccer (MLS) is the top-flight soccer league in the United States. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 11:09 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
That case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garrett E. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 2:09 pm by Gene Quinn
Both products are moexipril tablets that have been sold in the United States since 1995 and 1997, respectively. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 8:56 am
(collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:45 am by Glenn
They’re just not an antitrust violation in the United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 7:37 pm by Patricia Salkin
Thus the court held that Sherman stated a non-categorical takings claim and remanded it to be heard on the merits in District Court. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 9:53 am by Jon Sands
[Ed. note -- Sorry for the delay; Jon and I were both out late last week.]United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 4:37 pm
”) The government responded by filing another brief on behalf of “the United States” authorized by the Solicitor General. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:18 am by Joy Waltemath
However, the decision applies only to a category of ostensibly public workers who aren’t “full-fledged” state employees, and to which the High Court’s 1977 holding in Abood v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 4:11 am by admin
., non-criminal) “reviewable matters” under the Act include abuse of dominance (or monopolization as it is referred to in the United States under the Sherman Act), civil misleading advertising, refusal to deal, price maintenance and certain types of “vertical” restraints by dominant firms (e.g., exclusive dealing and tied selling). [read post]
28 May 2014, 5:36 am
For the jury to have found Katakis guilty of obstruction of justice, it had to find that the government proved each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:[1] that defendant Katakis knowingly altered, destroyed, or concealed electronic records or documents; [2] that defendant Katakis acted with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence an investigation that he either knew of or contemplated; and [3] that the investigation was about a matter by or within the jurisdiction of the… [read post]
15 May 2014, 1:53 am by rhapsodyinbooks
United States (221 U.S. 1) that the Standard Oil Company was in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 (26 Stat. 209). [read post]