Search for: "LAMBERT v. STATE"
Results 301 - 320
of 603
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2012, 11:54 am
Many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have recognized a private cause of action for violation of NASD and NYSE Rules, including a private cause of action for andldquo;the failure to supervise.andrdquo;andnbsp; See, e.g., Cook v. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 5:31 am
(For contemporary illustrations of this point, see the interpretation recently promulgated by Bishop Mark Lawrence, or the statement of Bishop Shaw on gay marriage in his diocese, or the court's decision in the Dixon v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 9:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:07 pm
Warner-Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85, 94 (2d Cir. 2006)). [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 9:37 am
The Supreme Court accepted cert in Desinao, but issued only a 4-4 split decision in Warner-Lambert Co. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 3:15 am
ne Lambert. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 2:43 pm
Warner Lambert & Co., 467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006), aff’d by equally divided court, 552 U.S. 440 (2008), attempting to distinguish Buckman Co. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Warner-Lambert Co. [read post]
11 Aug 2012, 11:30 am
Lambert-Woolley, 168 N.J. 398, 404 (2001). [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 6:41 pm
In view of Lambert’s holding that a complaint made to a supervisor does not suffice, the employee did not state a claim for unlawful retaliation under the FLSA, declared the court. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 10:00 am
” This corporate lobbying drive first focused on state legislatures. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 5:40 am
In Deborah Watts as Next Friend for Naython Kayne Watts v. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 9:10 am
The court noted that while several other courts have held that plaintiffs who have only suffered an increased risk of identity theft do not have standing, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Lambert v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 1:57 am
The case is Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd and another company v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2012] EWHC 1719 (Ch), a Patents Court, England and Wales, decision of Mr Justice Roth of 28 June in relation to a dispute which arose over atorvastatin, a popular pharma product distributed in the UK by Pfizer (Warner Lambert being part of the Pfizer group of companies: the defendant was referred to as 'Pfizer' throughout the proceedings). [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 8:58 am
References: Jill Ann Duffy & Elizabeth Ardella Laub Lambert, Sup. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 2:59 am
Here, as the instant action is based upon a fraudulent scheme, the doctrine of res judicata would not bar plaintiffs from seeking to recover damages in this action (see Lambert v Sklar, 61 AD3d 939 [2d Dept. 2009]). [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 10:40 am
Lambert, “What to add to nothing? [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 9:19 pm
People v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 3:22 am
United States v. [read post]
