Search for: "State v. Sherman" Results 241 - 260 of 1,940
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2010, 11:39 am by Kent Scheidegger
Mark Sherman of AP reports the state will likely prevail, but Robert Barnes of the WaPo reports the Court is "conflicted. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 1:45 pm
Finally, Don Thompson of the AP reports here that the California senate approved a bill that would change the state's sentencing scheme in the wake of the Court's ruling in Cunningham v. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 8:40 pm by Josh Wright
  But both anticompetitive wake left by 17043 and similar laws makes a strong case for abolishing these state antitrust laws or harmonization provisions that tie interpretation to the Sherman Act. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 4:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Webster v Sherman  2018 NY Slip Op 06590  Decided on October 3, 2018  Appellate Division, Second Department does fall into this small crack. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 5:03 pm by Jeffrey M. Goldstein
In so concluding, the Court ruled that Blanton, the plaintiff employee of a Domino’s franchisee, had adequately pled that Domino’s used the franchise agreements to orchestrate a conspiracy among their franchisees to not compete for labor; Blanton says that the no-hire provision is evidence of that conspiracy and violates the Sherman Antitrust Act because it unreasonably restrains competition for Domino’s franchise employees and depresses employee wages, lessens employee… [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 10:36 am by Don T. Hibner, Jr.
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]
14 Sep 2008, 9:30 pm
DOJ Section 2 Report Issued: The Department of Justice issued a 215-page report (.pdf) on September 8 entitled: Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.Perhaps the best known Section 2 monopolization case in the modern era is U.S. v. [read post]