Search for: "Sherman v. United States" Results 521 - 540 of 1,041
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, four Chinese producers of vitamin.C, conspired to fix prices and production levels for vitamin C exported to the United States. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 9:47 am by Sheppard Mullin
United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949) (“Standard Stations”) the Supreme Court devised what has become known as the “quantitative substantiality” test. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 8:47 am by Don T. Hibner, Jr.
United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949) (“Standard Stations”) the Supreme Court devised what has become known as the “quantitative substantiality” test. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 1:54 am by Florian Mueller
In late July the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a "final" (but not final-final) Office action rejecting all claims of the '915 patent. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am by Devlin Hartline
Take, for example, the Sherman Act, which makes illegal agreements in restraint of trade.4 How should a court proceed if a defendant claims that the agreement he made with his codefendant is speech protected by the First Amendment even if it’s in restraint of trade? [read post]
27 Jul 2013, 3:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded after rejecting both of the District Court's grounds. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 8:31 am by Steven Boranian
  On implied preemption, the defendant emphasized correctly that only the United States can enforce the FDCA. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 7:29 am by Gene Quinn
Case No. 10-cv-05542 was originally filed in the United States Federal District Court for the District of Delaware. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 4:10 pm by Dan Stein
Holder, this Term’s challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court held that Section 4 of the law, which identifies the state and local governments that are subject to the Act’s “preclearance” requirement, is unconstitutional based on “current conditions” in the United States. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:53 am by Sheppard Mullin
DFA filed suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that ELC violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring with DFA’s competitors to exclude it from the airport duty-free beauty products market. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:36 am by WIMS
(Evergreen) appealed from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing its Second Amended Complaint (complaint). [read post]