Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Atlantic Cement Co., [1] was a New York court case in which New York's highest court considered whether permanent damages were an appropriate remedy in lieu of a permanent injunction. The case was one of the first and most influential instances of a court applying permanent damages. It is widely referenced in law and economics research and case ...
But under article 15(6) the immunity would not apply after the Commission informed undertakings of their preliminary examination. The Noordwijk Cement companies got a letter under article 15(6) saying their immunity ceased, and it brought an action to quash the decision. The Commission argued their decision was not an ‘act’ that could be ...
The Lafarge scandal refers to the court case against Lafarge, a French cement company, for making payments to the armed terrorist groups Islamic State of Iraq and Levant and al-Nusra Front between 2013–2014. [1] The scandal was first revealed by French journalist Dorothée Myriam Kellou and was then followed by investigations by the French ...
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. [1] Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
This was an important case in Australian constitutional law because it overruled the decision in the earlier case of Huddart, Parker & Co Pty Ltd v Moorehead, [2] which held that the corporations power only extended as far as the regulation of their conduct in relation to their transactions with or affecting the public. Since this case, the ...
Affordability is becoming a growing challenge for younger generations. Although they're often drawn to vibrant cities for their career opportunities and lifestyle perks, high housing costs make ...
Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that individual states, when acting as producers or suppliers rather than as market regulators, may discriminate preferentially against out-of-state residents.