Search for: "BAKER v. STATE" Results 2501 - 2520 of 3,485
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm by Bexis
  The plaintiff also advanced Arkansas state pharmacy regulations, but none of these created any duty of pharmacists to warn either patients or prescribing physicians. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:34 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
The Baker Hostetler website has a new Executive Alert discussing the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Kartman v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 8:44 am by Lawrence Solum
Specifically, the analysis addresses how these limitations on the rule of stare decisis might affect the precedential value of Baker v. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 9:48 am by Steve Lash
Saying Baltimore had the right idea, Senate President Thomas V. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 1:01 pm by Stefanie Levine
Next up is Peter Brown of Baker Hostetler discussing critical pitfalls in Intellectual Property Licenses. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 10:00 am by Record on Appeal
 The court made it clear that even under Baker & Taylor, an in-state purchaser who uses goods in this State is subject to the excise use tax. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 10:44 pm by Isabel McArdle
Similar points were made in the decision of Rose LJ and Scott Baker J in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p World Development Movement [1995] 1 WLR 386, in which the World Development Movement was permitted to challenge a decision not to give assurance that the UK would provide no further funds for a hydro-electric power station outside the jurisdiction. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 3:29 am by Marie Louise
446/09 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd, Far East Sourcing Ltd, Röhlig Hong Kong Ltd and Röhlig Belgium NV and C? [read post]
Duplication of legal proceedings arising out of the same facts is not a basis for declining jurisdiction over an Application: see Baker v. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 4:10 am by Russ Bensing
That’s similar to the argument being made in State v. [read post]