Search for: "SmithKline Beecham Limited"
Results 61 - 80
of 160
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2019, 5:03 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 US 142, 155 (2012) which was further quoting Bowen v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 10:43 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., which would have excluded pharmaceutical sales representatives, and favored a “functional,” “flexible,” and “realistic” rather than “technical” and “formalistic” approach to interpreting the FLSA exemption. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 4:42 pm
SmithKline Beecham recently, he might grant the motion in September and reconsider the following July. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 6:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., in which the Court will consider whether the “outside sales exemption” of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives; Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy calls it “a case worth watching” for those interested in administrative law. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 4:02 pm
" A claim of false advertising may be based on at at least one of two theories (Time Warner Cable v DIRECTV (2007)):that the challenged ad is literally falsethat the ad, while not literally false, is nevertheless likely to mislead or confuse consumersThe claimant must demonstrate that the false or misleading representation involved an inherent or material quality of the product and that the injuries to be redressed are the result of "public deception" (Johnson & Johnson v… [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 8:38 am
An antitrust class action lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc. and SmithKline Beecham Corp., doing business as GlaxoSmithKline and GlaxoSmithKline plc (jointly “GSK”) claimed that these corporations, the ones responsible for the production and marketing of Wellbutrin XL, worked to limit the availability of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL, far less expensive alternatives to the brand-name medication. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 12:46 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., which held that pharmaceutical reps are subject to the "outside sales" exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 7:30 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. in which the Court will consider whether the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “outside sales exemption” applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives. [read post]
29 May 2019, 12:22 pm
If the defendant "knew the risk and decided it was best not to remove it" then that is a factor in favor of maintaining the status quo and granting an injunction (see Aldous LJ in SmithKline Beecham v Apotex [2003] FSR 31 at [40]; see also Arnold J in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 72 at [133]). [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 1:11 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., et al., 2015 WL 5970639 (Pa. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 6:55 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., this decision is particularly disturbing. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 8:27 am
SmithKline Beecham (and a string of other sources, including George Orwell), the court emphasized that an agency “should not change an interpretation in an adjudicative proceeding where doing so would impose new liability on individuals for past actions which were taken in good-faith reliance on agency pronouncements. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 12:00 pm
Dudas, et al. consolidated with Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 1:47 pm
” SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 6:46 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp. [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 10:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Slip Op.(3d Cir. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2014 WL 804458 (N.D. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 7:40 am
See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 538 F. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 3286976 (S.D. [read post]
