Search for: "Standard Oil Co. of California v. California" Results 41 - 60 of 234
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Apr 2008, 8:54 am
Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (holding that Clayton Act does not confer standing for general economic harm), the Court observed that the relevant language of the Connecticut Antitrust Act differed from the Clayton Act. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 12:53 pm by David Wagner
Topics will include: Hydraulic fracturing regulation Aggregation Greenhouse gas litigation California's cap-and-trade program Chemicals regulation (possible TSCA reform and California's Green Chemistry) New mercury standards for coal and oil-burning power plants Renewable energy incentive programs Offshore wind power generation CERCLA: Fallout from Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 2:25 pm by Orin Kerr
Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("[I]n most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am by David Wagner
The 10 issues to watch are: Offshore wind power generation Renewable energy incentive programs Hydraulic fracturing regulation Aggregation Greenhouse gas litigation California's cap-and-trade program California's Green Chemistry program New mercury standards for coal and oil-burning power plants Fallout from CERCLA decision in Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 2:59 pm by Cicely Wilson
” The Oil Companies contracted to have McColl, a former Shell engineer, dump the waste at property in Fullerton, California. [read post]
28 May 2013, 8:43 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Standard Oil Co. of California, 449 U.S. 232, 243 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the issuance of a complaint under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act was not a final agency action under the APA. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am by Kevin LaCroix
  With respect to the California statutory business judgment rule, the court observed that the statute provides that directors who perform their duties as directors in accordance with the statutory standards have no liability for failing to properly discharge their duties as such. [read post]