Search for: "State v. Clayton" Results 101 - 120 of 1,036
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2009, 9:19 pm
Antitrust Class Action Challenging Merger of Anheuser-Busch and InBev Fails as a Matter of Law because InBev could not Reasonably be Viewed as a “Potential Competitor” Prior to the Merger Missouri Federal Court Holds Plaintiffs, characterizing themselves as “a group of Missouri beer consumers and purchasers,” filed a putative class action against Anheuser-Busch and InBev NV/SA challenging the proposed merger of the companies; the class action complaint alleged that “the… [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 9:14 am by Howard Friedman
The 2020 Rule directly contravenes the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent holding in Bostock v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 11:43 am by Clayton Graham
 While many codes state that the nonconforming use must be “lawfully established,” they do not generally specify whether, to be “lawful,” the use must have complied only with land use regulations or with other laws as well.In McMilian v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 3:50 pm by David Garcia and Melissa Gertler
Assuming no petition for certiorari is filed, and given the Third Circuit’s straightforward reasoning, it seems likely that going forward, in order to request attorneys’ fees, state attorneys general must not only join under Section 7 of the Clayton Act but actually litigate under the more demanding Clayton Act standard for granting injunctive relief. [1] FTC et al. v. [read post]