Search for: "Don W Riske"
Results 2061 - 2080
of 2,113
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jul 2007, 10:39 am
Here's a pretty good discussion of the difference:[W]e must decide whether experts were required to testify with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 4:29 am
Don't take our word for it. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 12:17 pm
It seems to me to fall in what the law calls "assumption of risk. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 10:30 am
(W. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 11:03 am
Other studies have shown that sufferers of information overload: become highly selective and ignore a large amount of information or give up and don't go beyond the first results in many cases (David Bawden, "Perspectives on Information Overload" (1999) 51(8) ASLIB Proceedings at 252) need more time to reach a decision (J. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 2:22 pm
He wrote:[W]e "have no right to trench upon the province of the jury upon questions of fact. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 5:29 pm
Thanks again, Michael W. [read post]
7 Jun 2007, 10:21 am
" Simply saying that people don't always know what's best for them isn't dispositive, of course, nor does it address the Millian notion that "I know my preferences better than someone else. [read post]
3 Jun 2007, 6:41 am
I have, of course, many times bewailed the fact that we don't have a mechanism for dumping an incumbent President through a (bi-partisan) vote of "no confidence" and replacement by a member of the deposed President's own party. [read post]
2 Jun 2007, 12:50 pm
Take risks. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 2:30 pm
that BAPCPA's extension of the Code's protections for the financial services industry "to include a broader array of financial contracts, all in the name of reducing systemic risk ... is a mistake. [read post]
31 May 2007, 4:31 am
There's already been commentary on Twombly from the usual suspects: Pointoflaw, AEI ([www.aei.org]), Lawprofessors, scotusblog, and Prof Dorf - as well as from antitrust mavens with whom we don't often interact: Lawprofessors (the antitrust group, this time), Antitrustreview, and MoFo ([www.mondaq.com]). [read post]
25 May 2007, 1:46 am
Jack W. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Superior Court, 920 P.2d 1347, 1353 (Cal. 1996) ("if state-of-the-art scientific data concerning the alleged risk was fully disclosed to the FDA and it determined, after review, that the pharmaceutical manufacturer was not permitted to warn. . .the FDA's conclusion that there was, in effect, no known risk is controlling"); Kelso v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 8:16 am
Don’t expect platinum service if you are only paying for silver. [read post]
22 May 2007, 2:29 pm
LoPucki and Joseph W. [read post]
11 May 2007, 3:21 am
Long and John W. [read post]
9 May 2007, 1:34 pm
The Draft would say "don't look at the entire action at all. [read post]
3 May 2007, 10:20 am
Rather, the municipality was attempting to foist a "legislative policy decision" onto the courts:We are especially reluctant to reallocate risks where a governmental entity is the injured party. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 9:35 am
We've got very high-risk sites and we want to spend our resources making sure those are cleaned up. [read post]
