Search for: "KENT A. LAMBERT"
Results 61 - 80
of 131
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2008, 4:48 pm
Kent, resulting in a 4-4 split, and therefore no decision. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:04 am
Kent mean for industry in Levine. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 6:07 am
Kent), can cause a conflict of interest recusal, as Chief Justice John Roberts didn't participate due to a $15,000 stock investment in Pfizer, parent company of Warner-Lambert. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 8:00 am
In the wake of the Supreme Court's Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 11:01 am
In some cases, like the Michigan law at issue in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 11:01 am
In some cases, like the Michigan law at issue in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 6:44 am
Kent, to determine whether drug manufacturers should receive similar protection from lawsuits that the Court handed out to medical device makers earlier in February. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 9:59 pm
Justice Ginsburg let her true feelings about drug companies slip during oral arguments in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 8:02 am
Kent. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 7:14 am
Kent. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 6:55 am
Updating this ILB entry from Feb. 26 about the case of Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 11:42 pm
Warner-Lambert (now affirmed by the 4 to 4 tie in the Supreme Court under the name Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 2:34 pm
Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 6:56 am
Kent is certainly a step in the right direction towards access to justice for regular Americans. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 3:46 pm
Kent, case no. 06-1498 (Mar. 3, 2008). [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:07 pm
Kent, No. 06-1498 (U.S. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 10:06 am
Today, in a four to four split decision, with Chief Justice Roberts not participating, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit in Warner Lambert v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 8:31 am
In a surprise, an equally divided court affirmed 4-4 without releasing an opinion (Roberts was recused, effectively giving the respondents a fifth vote); the question remains whether Breyer, Scalia, or Thomas was that fourth vote. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:51 am
Kent. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:16 am
Today’s ruling in Warner-Lambert v. [read post]
