Search for: "Doe v. Arizona, State of, et al"
Results 221 - 233
of 233
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2008, 5:45 pm
Foods that have been sources of contamination include ground beef, venison, sausages, dried (non-cooked) salami, unpasteurized milk and cheese, unpasteurized apple juice and cider (Cody, et al., 1999), orange juice, alfalfa and radish sprouts (Breuer, et al., 2001), lettuce, spinach, and water (Friedman, et al., 1999). [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 5:07 pm
Arpaio, et al. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 4:03 pm
The appeal in Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 3:05 pm
Winter, et al. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
, Schering-Plough Corp – Following dispute over trade dress with Schering-Plough, Fruit of the Earth announces plan to change its package design: (IP Law360), US: Quanta and its impact on biotechnology: (Holman’s Biotech IP Blog), US: BIO files amicus brief asking CAFC to cabin in scope of KSR and hold that its obvious to try dicta does not abrogate the Deuel standard: In re Kubin: (Patently-O), US: StemCells gets patent on enriched central nervous system stem cell and… [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 9:17 am
Zeneca Inc., et al. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 7:04 am
The case was Philip Morris USA, et al., v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 11:03 pm
Allen, et aL, Nos. 2:06-cv-695-WKW, 2:06-cv-WKW, 2007 WL 4463489, Mem. [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 10:14 am
Arizona held July 25th in State v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:53 am
The case was Irving N., et al., v. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 11:25 am
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds -- a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:29 pm
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds -- a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
