Search for: "Interest of L.D." Results 21 - 40 of 42
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jul 2013, 10:45 am by Bexis
  We found a number of interesting points − such as what the FDA apparently told the GAO about its position on off-label promotion (“[a]ccording to FDA, if a drug manufacturer promotes a drug for off-label uses, such promotion may constitute evidence to support a violation of the [FDCA]”) (emphasis added). [read post]
28 May 2011, 7:56 am by The Legal Blog
The Bench as well as the Bar has to avoid unwarranted situations or trivial issues that hamper the cause of justice and are in the interest of none.17) In the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re: , (1998) 7 SCC 248, the advocate was charged of criminal contempt of Court for the use of intemperate language and casting unwarranted aspersions on various judicial officers and attributing motives to them while discharging their judicial functions. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:58 am by Eugene Volokh
Was within a customary license or tolerance, which was not expressly refused by the person whose interest was infringed and which is not inconsistent with the purpose of the law defining the crime; or B. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 5:00 pm by Sam Hasler
From today's Indiana Lawyer came COA: inequity in grandparent visitation actA.B. and N.E. opposed L.D's adoption; the trial court granted some visitation to N.E. before the adoption was finalized. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
In the interests of maintaining that success, we offfer here a state-by-state break down of the precedent refusing to adopt “fraud on the market” or similar presumed reliance theories to state-law (not federal - no RICO or antitrust cases here) causes of action – everything from product liability to consumer fraud to state securities and other statutes. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 2:06 am
We've posted extensively on why we think Conte is a particularly dangerous expansion of tort liability because it simply ignores what product liability has been about for 50 years - that responsibility for product-related injuries follows profit obtained from the manufacture and sale of products.Sadly, it looks like the court that more or less invented strict product liability is no longer all that much interested in its creation. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 11:25 am
For publication opinions today (0): NFP civil opinions today (2): Matter of the Guardianship of B.D. and L.D., Michelle Doll v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
This could occur, the Appellate Division held, because the defendant was a New Jersey corporation and New Jersey's "strong interest in deterrence" of consumer fraud by New Jersey businesses outweighed all other states' interests. [read post]