Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unlike disabling restraints, the effectiveness of the lawsuit does not prevent the transfer from being made. However, the Supreme Court says promissory restraints are not permissible. The promissory note discourages the person getting ready to sell the property which is the same effect as the disabling restraint. Forfeiture restraints
After 1925, most cases have been subject to being granted a writ of certiorari which the Court can grant or deny without ruling on the merits. This change greatly reduced the Court's workload. [1] [2] In the past decade, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year. Plenary review, with oral arguments by ...
Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36 (1977), was an antitrust decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.It overturned United States v.Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967), which held that vertical restraints on the territory a product could be sold in were per se illegal.
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether the sale of "uncollateralized and uninsured promissory notes payable on demand by the holder" by the Farmers Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma were securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A post-sale restraint, also termed a post-sale restriction, as those terms are used in United States patent law and antitrust law, is a limitation that operates after a sale of goods to a purchaser has occurred and purports to restrain, restrict, or limit the scope of the buyer's freedom to utilize, resell, or otherwise dispose of or take action regarding the sold goods. [1]
The Hutelmyer case. In 1997, a jury in Alamance County awarded $1 million to Dorothy Hutelmyer, who argued in court that a secretary in her husband’s insurance office had intentionally wooed him ...
Last year, the Supreme Court reinstated the fetal remains law, but not the ban on abortions for race, sex and developmental disabilities. GUNS In a dissent in the 2019 gun-rights case of Kanter v.
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. [1] Dr Miles had ruled that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.