Search for: "BRIGHT V US"
Results 3081 - 3100
of 3,348
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
But because federal law requires that generic manufacturers use verbatim the labeling initially prepared by the inventor of the drug - here, Wyeth - plaintiff got a second bite at the apple against Wyeth, even though she indisputably never used Wyeth's drug, and Wyeth no longer even manufactured it. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 2:14 am
U.S. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 3:46 am
Herring v. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 7:57 am
" National Mining Association v. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 1:47 am
Panavise Products v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 1:10 pm
In Lawrence v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 11:13 am
The people maintaining public spaces, including those who use those spaces, want bright lines about which animals are permissible service animals, while the ADA requires that they accommodate individuals with disabilities and their individualized needs. [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 9:30 am
Whereas Chief Justice George thinks that a more bright-line (albeit overly broad) notification rule is equally permissible.But I was wondering: Why not just a bright-line rule that says you have to tell the officer about any dogs? [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. [read post]
28 Dec 2008, 5:35 pm
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 1:24 am
See Hawaii Insurers Council v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 7:27 pm
I also thought it would be useful to consider what measures could have been undertaken to prevent the misunderstandings that led to the 3M v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 6:49 pm
Co. v. [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
December 16, 2008)Affirming, with a thump, dismissal of fem bus driver's gender/failure-to-promote claim: No court could send such a case to trial because there was nothing to be tried5th Circuit Bright v. [read post]
19 Dec 2008, 5:21 am
Now the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on the issue in In Ross-Tousey v. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 11:17 am
[ADDED NOTE: This is only the press conference, not the argument before the court.]As described here and here, Madigan is relying on Article V, Section 6 of the Illinois constitution: "If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 8:11 am
Gordon v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 11:58 pm
On Friday, I wrote about how lawyers working for Polaris IP (Erich Spangenberg) want to use the discovery process in Polaris IP v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 6:29 am
In Arizona v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 5:00 am
As I motioned a suggestion to them to take their applause outside the courthouse, my thoughts transferred from "Moment's Notice" to "Bright Moments". [read post]
