Search for: "Labelle v. State"
Results 3681 - 3700
of 8,165
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2019, 4:00 pm
In one such case, Kirk et al v. [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 7:43 am
Co. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 8:55 am
Couick v. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 1:22 pm
In 2015, in Avneri v. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 9:23 am
(2) Nike v. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 2:46 pm
Boal v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 8:00 am
Doe v. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 12:50 am
Specifically, I'd present the regulatory sequence from the FDA's 1993 approval of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) as an animal drug, through constitutional litigation over state labeling laws responding to the rbST approval, and concluding finally in the Organic Food Labeling Act of 1997 and contemporary FDA directives regarding milk produced by cows treated, vel non, with rbST.NMBA was a single case involving an agricultural exemption from an otherwise… [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 2:14 pm
In the case of Tobin v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 12:05 am
In 2007, the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision stated that under Rule 8(a)(2) a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 7:58 am
In 2007, the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision stated that under Rule 8(a)(2) a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 10:01 pm
EsNtion Records, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 10:08 am
Bell v. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 10:46 am
The California Court of Appeal recently affirmed a denial of class certification in Fairbanks v. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 5:57 am
In that case, I believe it would be appropriate to say that whether or not they understand patent law, they'd have lost all of their credibility in the field of antitrust law--especially those who turned a deaf ear to counsel for suppliers at those Nokia v. [read post]
4 Sep 2023, 1:05 am
The presence of levodopa in the label for XADAGO is not a surprise. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 2:55 am
However, last week’s High Court, England and Wales, ruling in Enterprise v Europcar [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch) shows this is by no means a settled area, explains katfriend Jeremy Blum(Bristows LLP).* The Richemont ruling and beyond: dealing with counterfeit websites and the intermediaries that host themKatfriend Tim Behean provides another insightful analysis of Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 3354… [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 8:10 am
In 2017, the Indian Supreme Court, in the case State Bank of India v Santosh Gupta, observed that even though Article 370 was labeled a “[t]emporary provision[]” and the Constituent Assembly had dissolved, the article “continue[s] to be in force” (¶12)—thus indicating it had attained permanent status. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:03 am
Cal) ($775,000 coconut oil settlement based on “healthy” labelling); Christine Cumming v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 8:03 am
Cal) ($775,000 coconut oil settlement based on “healthy” labelling); Christine Cumming v. [read post]
