Search for: "Other Defendants-Class III-a, Class III-b, Class III-c"
Results 341 - 360
of 473
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2011, 10:53 am
“[S]ubstantially equivalent” Class III devices may be marketed without the rigorous PMA review [if their manufacturers] submit a “premarket notification” to the FDA. . . . [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 5:00 am
In these ways Dukes is relevant to every class action asserted against a manufacturer of prescription medical products.Part III of the Dukes opinion – the unanimous part (Part I is simply a factual/procedural history) – is narrower because it only concerns when an “injunctive” class can also seek forms of monetary relief. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 7:32 am
C. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 1:40 pm
§ 2252(a)(3)(B) (Count 4). [read post]
25 May 2011, 4:53 am
Nemati’s other argument arose under Penal Code § 111, which provides as follows: A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense. . . . [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:58 am
B. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 4:40 pm
The court is required to certify the action as a class proceeding where the following five-part test for certification is met: (a) the pleadings or the notice of application discloses a cause of action;(b) there is an identifiable class of two or more persons that would be represented by the representative plaintiff or defendant;(c) the claims or defences of the class members raise common issues;(d) a class proceeding would be the… [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 7:39 am
Mar. 23, 2011) Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging they were misled by labels on cans of Campbell’s less-sodium tomato soups and other marketing into buying those soups even though the sodium content was equal or nearly equal to that of Campbell’s regular tomato soup. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 4:17 pm
(b) Mr. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 7:35 am
Drahozal and Peter B. [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 6:56 pm
C. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 8:21 am
The law firm obtains an expert opinion saying that (a) There are no lawyer-client duties owed to the defendant by the law firm in the administration of the Claims Facility, such as loyalty and confidentiality; (b) There is no lawyer-client relationship between the law firm and the defendant in the administration of the Claims Facility; (c) Therefore, the law firm is not bound by ethical rules, such as MR 4.2, which forbids a lawyer in representing a client to… [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 8:21 am
The law firm obtains an expert opinion saying that (a) There are no lawyer-client duties owed to the defendant by the law firm in the administration of the Claims Facility, such as loyalty and confidentiality; (b) There is no lawyer-client relationship between the law firm and the defendant in the administration of the Claims Facility; (c) Therefore, the law firm is not bound by ethical rules, such as MR 4.2, which forbids a lawyer in representing a client to… [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 10:51 pm
Before proceeding further it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 1 of Order 37, Civil Procedure Code It reads as under:"Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely :(A)suits upon bills of exchange, Hundies and promissory notes;(B)suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest arising-(I)on a written contract;… [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 4:44 am
This device can be used in any case in which a defendant is potentially liable for multiple causes of action and/or a class action – e.g., for an oil spill; an airplane crash; a pharmaceutical that causes disability, death, or birth defects; etc. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm
It affirmed, or else plaintiffs didn’t appeal, the dismissal of everything in a product liability suite involving a PMA device other than so-called “parallel” violation claims. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 5:41 pm
201(b). [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
§ 253(1)(B) (Supp.1995) (Class A). [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 5:54 pm
If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 9:23 am
[iii] The challenged claims are: PATENT NO. [read post]
