Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The evidence in this case overwhelmingly sustained that view and led the circuit court, by its final decree, to order the dissolution of the New Jersey corporation and the discontinuance of the illegal combination between that corporation and its subsidiary companies. In my judgment, the decree below should have been affirmed without qualification.
Case history; Prior: Bearden v. State, 161 Ga. App. 640, 288 S.E.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1982); cert. granted, 458 U.S. 1105 (1982).: Holding; A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the ...
And its equally sized $5 billion investment in B of A could end up being even more lucrative given the accompanying warrants to purchase 700 million shares of the bank for $7.14 a share.
A prohibition notice given under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 given in respect of corrosion to the stairways of a North Sea oil installation was capable of being appealed. In making the appeal the employer was able to take into account expert evidence produced after the date of the inspection. [7] In the matter of C ...
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., 204 Mich 459; 170 NW 668 (1919), [1] is a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that Henry Ford had to operate the Ford Motor Company in the interests of its shareholders, rather than in a manner for the benefit of his employees or customers.
The report from aides to Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and chairman of the committee, says that the failure by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to disclose lavish ...
Click to skip ahead and read the 5 biggest companies that don’t pay dividends. Although these top companies are recognized by most of the general public, many people do not realize just how many ...
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. [1]