Search for: "Smithkline Beecham Corporation"
Results 61 - 80
of 83
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case about the “outside salesmen” exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 2:15 pm
SmithKline Beecham Corporation on the issue of the proper interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) outside sales representative exception to overtime, and, more importantly from this blog’s perspective, whether courts should defer to agency interpretations that appear only in amicus curiae briefs. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm
Because six of the appellee corporations are Pennsylvania-based, Pennsylvania can certainly be viewed as possessing a legitimate interest in ensuring that Pennsylvania companies do not manufacture or distribute hazardous products which cause injury. [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]
1 Apr 2008, 8:27 am
He was joined by SmithKline Beecham Corporation (d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline). [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:03 am
SmithKline Beecham Corporation, the Supreme Court explained that the definition of “sale” in 29 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 4:28 pm
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, d.b.a. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 6:50 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 2:00 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., [855 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 1:04 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2008 WL 2491965, at *7 (S.D. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 10:58 am
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179, 194-95 (E.D. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 2:51 am
SmithKline Beecham Corp., 596 F.3d 387, 390 (7th Cir.2010). [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 4:30 am
The corporate representative was "not responsible" for the conduct of the surgery. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
A few egregious articles in the biomedical literature have begun to endorse explicitly asymmetrical standards for inferring causation in the context of environmental or occupational exposures. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
Not surprisingly, many of Selikoff’s litigation- and regulatory-driven opinions have not fared well, such as the notions that asbestos causes gastrointestinal cancers and that all asbestos minerals have equal potential and strength to cause mesothelioma. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 5:12 am
The iconic Hunger Games line, “may the odds be ever in your favor” pretty much sums up how we feel about our top ten best decisions of 2015. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 7:00 pm
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included:Record labels sue Baidu over providing links to file-sharing sites: (Ars Technica), (Techdirt), (Out-Law), (IP Law360), (Copyfight), Merck’s Fosamax patent expires: Watson Pharmaceuticals to distribute authorized generic version, Teva and Barr also launch FDA approved generic versions: (SmartBrief), (Patent Circle), (In … [read post]
7 Feb 2007, 9:48 pm
Smithkline Beecham Corp., 2007 WL 178564, at *9 (E.D. [read post]
