Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
While Texas Gulf Sulphur held that material information included facts which "in reasonable and objective contemplation might" affect a company's stock price, [39] the Supreme Court in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. (1976) set the standard at whether "a reasonable shareholder would consider it important."
Legal opinion is a key point in law. In law, a legal opinion is in certain jurisdictions a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case, laying out the rationale and legal principles for the ruling.
The minimum-fee schedule was a list of prices, suggested by the county bar for various basic legal services, such as wills, marriage contracts, and title searches. The enforcement power lay in the hands of the State Bar, which was the administrative agency used by the Supreme Court of Virginia to regulate the legal profession.
The Commissioner is supposed to represent the people, not the insurance companies, to ensure we have a vibrant marketplace of insurance options, at reasonable prices.
Statements of opinion are usually insufficient to amount to a misrepresentation [38] as it would be unreasonable to treat personal opinions as "facts", as in Bisset v Wilkinson. [44] Exceptions can arise where opinions may be treated as "facts": - where an opinion is expressed yet this opinion is not actually held by the representor, [38]
In an opinion written by Justice Louis Brandeis, the Court held that an agreement between rivals limiting rivalry on price after an exchange was closed was reasonable and thus did not violate the Sherman Act. The Court rejected a strict interpretation of the Sherman Act's language: "The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is ...
The railroad association was price fixing under the per se approach. Competition should determine the reasonable rate, not agreements between companies. [2] The court further held that congressional debate could not be used to decipher legislative intent due to the complex and often varying opinions on what the act means for different ...
Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract.