Search for: "Frank v. Smith et al" Results 21 - 40 of 48
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm by Schachtman
” Jonathan Samet, et al., eds., Institute of Medicine Review of Asbestos: Selected Cancers (2006).[1] The Institute of Medicine’s monograph has fostered a more circumspect approach in some of the federal agencies. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 am by Kelly
Maersk (271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) District Court S D Texas: Continuing use of accused products sold prior to notice of patent is not direct infringement sufficient to support claim of indirect infringement: Tesco v Weatherford (Docket Report) District Court E D Texas: Enhanced damages & attorney’s fees: Plaintiff awarded $5 million in fees, $3 million in expert expenses, and treble damages as a result of litigation misconduct by defendant: ReedHycalog UK, Ltd. et… [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 10:44 am by Schachtman
” Philip Wexler, Bethesda, et al., eds., 2 Encyclopedia of Toxicology 96 (2005). [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm by Roshonda Scipio
Simon.Stahl, Philip Michael.Chicago, Illinois : ABA Section of Family Law, [2013]KF547 .S733 2013 Family Law According to our hearts : Rhinelander v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 6:05 am by Schachtman
Smith Corp., Circuit Court of Illinois, Third Judicial Circuit (Dec. 22, 2004). [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
., citing Ofer Shpilberg, et al., The Next Stage: Molecular Epidemiology, 50 J. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 1:09 pm by Schachtman
Talcott, et al., “Asbestos-associated Diseases in a Cohort of Cigarette-Filter Workers,” 321 N.Engl.J.Med. 1220 (1989). [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 1:26 pm
(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2017)I have just posted a preliminary draft of an article that is currently entitled The Corporate Social Responsibilities of Financial Institutions for the Conduct of their Borrowers: The View from International Law and Standards. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am by Ben
In Europe, The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the consent of a copyright holder does not cover the distribution of an object incorporating a work where that object has been altered after its initial marketing to such an extent that it constitutes a new reproduction of that work (Case C‑419/13, Art & Allposters International BV v Stichting Pictoright) with Eleonora opining that the decision means that that there is no such thing as a general principle of… [read post]