Search for: "State v. Magnuson"
Results 141 - 160
of 177
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Oct 2015, 5:03 am
A glimpse into that future may be found in Buckley v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 8:15 pm
’” Perez v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 9:09 am
Allen v. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 6:00 am
Circuit’s 1973 ruling in National Petroleum Refiners Association v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 4:45 am
Bruton v. [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 2:12 pm
Proposed settlement in Bowen In Bowen v. [read post]
27 Apr 2024, 2:02 pm
Cir. 1973) (holding that Section 6(g) “empowered [the FTC] to promulgate substantive rules of business conduct”); United States v. [read post]
17 Jan 2023, 9:49 am
(See, e.g., Bowen v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court, in United States v. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 12:22 pm
The first of the decisions, Arroyo v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:51 pm
Trazo v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 10:10 am
Wilson v. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 10:34 am
Dorsey v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 11:56 am
After Wyeth v. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 6:30 am
But a cursory comparison of the equivalent piece of Australian federal legislation to the legislation at issue in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo suggests it is at least not true in all cases. [read post]
9 May 2022, 8:51 am
Since then, rulemaking has typically addressed consumer-protection concerns, the authority for which was codified in Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in 1975, incorporated in Section 18 of the FTC Act. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
The announcement states the FTC intends to explore rules “cracking down” on the “business of collecting, analyzing, and profiting from information about people. [read post]
28 May 2011, 2:04 pm
The case IWOI, LLC v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 2:47 pm
In December 2021, the FTC issued a “Statement of Regulatory Priorities” (SRP) stating that “the Commission in the coming year will consider developing both unfair-methods-of competition [UMC] rulemakings as well as rulemakings to define with specificity unfair or deceptive acts or practices [UDAPs]. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 3:58 am
Plaintiff alleged breach of implied and express warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq., and breach of contract and unconscionability under California law. [read post]
