Search for: "Sherman v. United States"
Results 501 - 520
of 1,059
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Allegations That Designer Wedding Dress Line Constitutes A Relevant Product Market Found Implausible
30 Dec 2014, 10:36 am
House of Brides subsequently brought an action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, for violations of the Sherman Act, and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 8:09 am
(Dickerson v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 8:46 am
At least 10 transgender women of color have been murdered in the United States since June. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
For that purpose we consider the legal position of the subsidiary units of government in the United States and their relationship to federal power. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 11:17 am
The allegations, as discussed in United States ex rel. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 8:12 am
Prior to Myriad, the US Supreme Court held in Mayo v. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 11:22 pm
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
Major League Soccer (MLS) is the top-flight soccer league in the United States. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 11:09 pm
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
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]
15 Aug 2014, 11:41 pm
In United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:45 am
They’re just not an antitrust violation in the United States. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 7:37 pm
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
[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]
8 Jul 2014, 9:38 am
” United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:18 am
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]
30 Jun 2014, 11:08 am
Twombly, and Ashcroft v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 6:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
