Search for: "SAI INDUSTRIES CORP V US" Results 181 - 200 of 1,345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jul 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  That happened to us recently, hence this post.When an application is required to sell an FDA-regulated product (including almost all such products likely to be involved in litigation), the manufacturer cannot sell it in the U.S. until and unless the FDA says ‘yes. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 11:52 am by Lyle Denniston
  The consolidated cases are General Dynamics Corp. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 8:48 am by Florian Mueller
Instead, Apple would use Intel and MediaTek components according to the report.Nothing is final yet, and Qualcomm says it could and would still sell its products to Apple. [read post]
7 Feb 2023, 12:00 pm by Bernard Bell
In 1996, HHS issued guidance limiting covered entities to using one contract pharmacy. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
  So we decided to take an in-depth look at all of the the precedent that rejects application of a “fraud on the market” reliance presumption to state-law claims.Just to make sure that everyone’s with us, briefly “fraud on the market” is a doctrine that waters down fraud (and, plaintiffs would like to say, other liability theories based on claimed misinformation) by presuming reliance in certain limited circumstances. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 5:30 pm
Because a manufacturer cannot be required to warn of a risk unknown to science, the knowledge chargeable to him must be limited to that of the period during which the plaintiff was using the product in question.Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 9:06 pm
Huron Valley Steel, Reading Company, and Cooper Industries (the petitioner in a predecessor case, Cooper Industries v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 9:36 am by Matthew A. Reed
 Such advice – telling a welder, say, to use a respirator – can do little harm, and might do a lot of good. [read post]