Search for: "Labelle v. State"
Results 2021 - 2040
of 8,154
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2010, 3:16 pm
Wyeth, Inc.], abrogated the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by allowing state tort liability for failure to warn in direct contravention of the Act’s requirement that a generic drug’s labeling be the same as the FDA-approved labeling for the listed (or branded) drug. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 10:35 am
In May of this year, the United States Supreme Court came down with the decision in Bell Atlantic v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 12:54 pm
Prohias v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 12:20 pm
Instead, the United States alleges precisely what is required by § 2318, that is, that the Defendant knowingly trafficked in illicit labels. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 3:07 pm
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 5:16 am
The FDA's regulations so state. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 9:31 pm
In State of Louisiana v. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 1:54 am
Kamaole Pointe Development LP v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 12:28 pm
Carhart, and its decision earlier this summer in United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2021, 6:06 am
Miyoko's Kitchen v. [read post]
4 Feb 2009, 3:31 am
Here in SHAHRAM DAVID LAVIAN, -v.- IRA DANIEL TOKAYER, ESQ., 08 Civ. 938 (PAC) (GWG); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;2009 U.S. [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 8:20 am
That such labeling might be a “floor” for preemption purposes, as the court stated, was totally irrelevant because preemption was not an issue. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 1:57 am
In Riegel v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 2:21 pm
Renfroe, a State Farm contractor. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 9:30 am
You would think the alcohol would show up on a label, but federal law only requires the ethanol content to be reported or labeled if the alcohol content is .5% w/v or greater. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 4:39 am
Hood v. [read post]
8 Mar 2022, 3:58 pm
By James V. [read post]
20 May 2014, 11:33 am
Eckhardt v. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 1:44 pm
Wyeth v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 4:30 am
Such was the case in Bock v. [read post]
